Delhi District Court
Kishan Ram (Dar) vs Sheel Kumar (48/19 Kmp) on 3 December, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 286/19
Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar
CNR No: DLSE-01002619-2019
1. Kishan Ram
S/o Sh. Shoban Ram
R/o. H.No. A-88, Gautampuri
New Delhi.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Sheel Kumar
S/o Sh. Jai Karan
R/o Village-Khatkar
Tehsil-Narwana,Distt-Jind
Harayana.
............Driver/Respondent no.1
2. Delhi Transport Corporation ATI Babu Lal S/o Munna Ram Tokan No.43531 (Subhash Place Depot) R/o-B-86,B2, Lakhi Ram Park, Rohini, Sec.-22, Delhi.
............Reg. Owner/Respondent no.2
3. United India Insurance company Ltd. Himalaya House, K.G. Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
............Insurance company/Respondent no.3 Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:27:44 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 1 Of 24 BK :2: Date of accident : 28.01.2019 Result of accident : Grievous Injury Date of filing of DAR : 15.04.2019 Date of Decision : 03.12.2025 AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report arises out of road accident that occurred on 28.01.2019, in which one Kishan Ram (aged about 55 years) allegedly suffered grievous injury.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.01.2019, on receipt of GD no.39A, SI Pradeep Kumar alongwith Ct. Virender reached at AIIMS Trauma Center and obtained MLC in which it was mentioned that accident took place due to fall from moving bus and run over by the bus near AIIMS bus stop. Injured was brought by co-workers to the hospital. He was found unfit for the statement. An eye witness namely Sabhapati Yadav stated that on 28.01.2019 at about 5.30 PM, he alongwith his neighbour i.e. injured Kishan Ram, who worked with him at Gym Khana Club, were standing at AIIMS Bus Stop. One green colour bus having route no.479 bearing registration no.DL-1PC-0196 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) stopped at bus stop. He boarded the bus from rear side but when the injured was in the process of boarding the bus, driver of said bus closed the door due to which injured Kishan Ram fell and sustained injuries on his leg. He took the injured to hospital in an auto for treatment.
3. An FIR no.48/19, dated 29.01.2019 was registered u/s 279,337 of IPC, PS Kotla Mubarakpur. Matter was investigated. During investigation doctor preparing the MLC opined the CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 GUPTA 17:27:54 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 2 Of 24 BK :3: injuries to be 'grievous' in nature and accordingly Section 338 IPC was also invoked. A chargesheet was filed before concerned criminal court against driver of the offending vehicle. The present DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. As per record, Respondent no.1 is the driver, respondent no.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent no.3 is insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured.
5. Respondent no.1/Driver and owner filed their reply submitting that driver of the offending bus was falsely implicated in the present case. It is pleaded that injured tried to board the moving bus, due to which he fell on the road. It is pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of accident.
Respondent no.3/insurance company filed its reply as well as a legal offer of Rs.61,000/- as compensation.
6. On the basis of pleadings on record, following issues were framed on 29.09.2021.
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 28.01.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
DL-1TC-0196 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. In order to prove his claim, petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1.
To prove his claim, petitioner/ Kishan Ram led his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:28:00 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 3 Of 24 BK :4: lines of the DAR. He stated that he was working in Gymkhana Club and on 28.01.2019, he was returning back after completion of his duties alongwith his neighbour namely Sabhapati Yadav. At around 5.30 pm, when they reached at AIIMS bus stop ring road, one bus having route no. 479 arrived and his neighbour Sabhapati Yadav boarded the bus from the rear door and when he was in the process of boarding, the driver of said bus bearing registration no.DL-1PC-0196, without closing the door started the bus, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries in the left leg. When the public and his neighbour shouted, then the driver of the bus stopped the bus. He was taken to AIIMS Trauma center from where he was referred to Safderjung hospital. Doctor opined his injuries as "open grade 3B broken left distal femur plus broken proximal left both bone leg with degloving injury left knee w/o DNVD, wound lavage+ debriment F/b left trans knee external fixatore application F/b calcaneumpin removal fr broken left both bone leg, broken left distal femur below SA etc."
He was admitted in Safdarjung hospital on 29.01.2019 and was discharged on 05.02.2019. Thereafter, he was admitted in Holy Family hospital on 22.09.2019 and he was discharged on the same day. He remained bed ridden till October, 2019. At the time of accident, he was working in Gymkhana and earning Rs.50,796/- p.m. He suffered loss of leave of about 8-1/2 months. He spent Rs. 4 lacs on his treatment and medicines. He is further advised to undergo operation of knee as he is not able to bend his knee. He hired an attendant for about 9 months to whom he is paying Rs.10,000/- p.m. Further, as per advise, he Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:28:05 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 4 Of 24 BK :5: used to pay Rs.250/- per day for his massage for about one year after the accident. He spent Rs.300/- per day on his special diet for about six months.
He relied upon documents i.e. Aadhar card as Ex.PW-1/1, PAN as Ex.PW-1/2, I-card as Ex.PW-1/3, computer generated salary slip as Ex.PW-1/4, Medical prescription and treatment as Ex.PW-1/5, Medical bills as Ex.PW-1/6, bank account statement as Ex.PW-1/7, MLC as Ex.Pw-1/8, DAR as Ex.PW-1/9, photographs reflecting the injuries suffered by him as Ex.PW-1/10, 2 CDs reflecting medical documents with certificate under section 65-B IEA as Ex.PW-1/11 and disability certificate as Ex.PW-1/12 and summary of bills as Mark-A. He suffered 62% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb issued by Medical Board of Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya hospital.
PW-1 as duly cross examined by counsel for insurance company.
Dr. Varan Phogat, Senior Resident Doctor was examined as PW-2. He proved disability certificate issued to injured Kishan Ram as Ex.PW-2/1. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Dr. Mala Saini, Senior CMO was examined as PW-3. She proved admission and discharge report of injured/petitioner as Ex.PW-3/1, final bill dated 22.02.2019 as Ex.PW-3/2 and authorization letter as Ex.PW-3/3. She was cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Sh. J.P. Singh, store clerk at M/s. Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd was examined as PW-4. He proved his I-card as Ex.PW-4/1, appointment letter dated 03.06.1975 of injured Kishan Singh as Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:28:11 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 5 Of 24 BK :6: Ex.PW-4/2, appointment letter dated 20.03.1981 as Ex.PW-4/3, leave report of injured as Ex.PW-4/4, extract of salary register regarding salary details of injured from November,2018 to January, 2019 as Ex.PW-4/5, certificate issued by employer regarding details of bank account of injured/petitioner as Ex.PW-4/6, his authorization letter as Ex.PW-4/7. He was cross- examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Sh. Mukesh Sharma was examined as PW-5. He proved bank statement of injured/petitioner for the period of 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2019 as Ex.PW-5/1. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Dr. Mala Saini was examined as PW-6. She was working with Holy Family hospital. She proved office record i.e. IP No.19/006343 dated 30.03.2019 as Ex.PW-6/1, IP No.19/007264 dated 11.04.2019 as Ex.PW-6/2, IP No.19/009258 dated 11.05.2019 as Ex.PW-6/3, extract of Daily Register maintained in computer from 01.01.2019 to 31.12.2019 as Ex.PW-6/4, registration slip dated 07.05.2019, treatment slip dated 11.05.2019, bill dated 07.05.2019 as Ex.PW-6/5, discharge summary alongwith treatment record dated 09.04.2019 to 11.04.2019 as Ex.PW-6/6, discharge summary alongwith treatment record dated 07.05.2019 to 11.05.2019 as Ex.PW-6/7, discharge summary alongwith treatment record dated 28.03.2019 to 30.03.2019 as Ex.PW-6/8, registration slip dated 05.02.2019 as Ex.PW-6/9 and authorization letter dated 05.06.2023 as Ex.PW-6/10. She was cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
Respondents did not lead any evidence. CHARU by CHARU GUPTA Digitally signed GUPTA 2025.12.03 Date:
17:28:17 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 6 Of 24 BK :7:
8. Final arguments in detail were addressed by all parties.
Now, on the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No. 1Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 28.01.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-1TC-0196 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP
9. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable.
Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
10. In the present case, petitioner and eye witness have testified as PW-1 and PW-2 to allege that factum and manner of accident. Both have categorically alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The manner of accident though has been denied by respondent no.1 by way of an evasive reply, no question or suggestion during cross-examination of PW-1 has been put on behalf of such respondents to deny the occurrence of accident in the manner alleged, involving the offending vehicle. CHARU by Digitally signed CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:28:24 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 7 Of 24 BK :8:
11. Further, after investigation, even the police had filed chargesheet against respondent no.1 u/s 279/338 of IPC and 3/181 and 5/180 MV Act which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioners have been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
13. No statutory defence has been taken by the insurance company. As such, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the victim.
14. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'le Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist ofCHARU the law is Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:28:31 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 8 Of 24 BK :9: that the object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
15. Further it can be noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:28:37 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 9 Of 24 BK : 10 : consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
15.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 15.2. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
15.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
15.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
15.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:28:43 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 10 Of 24 BK : 11 : 15.6. Observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. is quoted hereunder:
"10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future earnings', if the claimant continues in government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:28:50 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 11 Of 24 BK : 12 : the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.
Pecuniary /Special Damages
(i) Loss of earnings.
Actual loss of earning:
16. As per the medical record, petitioner remained hospitalized in AIIMS Trauma Center, Delhi hospital from 28.01.2019 to 29.01.2019, in Safdarjung hospital from 29.01.2019 to 05.02.2019 and in Holy Family from 28.03.2019 to 30.03.2019, 09.04.2019 to 11.04.2019, 07.05.2019 to 11.05.2019. He underwent a surgery on 30.01.2019 at Safdarjung hospital. In these circumstances, it is assumed that petitioner would have been incapacitated for doing any work for at least four months.
As regards income, petitioner has claimed to be working as attendant in M/s Gymkhana Club and earning gross salary of Rs.50,796/- p.m. He placed on record salary slip as Ex.PW-1/4, according to which, his net salary was Rs.36,777/- p.m. Further, he has not filed any proof regarding the deduction of his salary during his absence from the work. Considering deduction under the head of income tax, union, mess and transport allowance, salary of petitioner is taken as Rs.43,348/- p.m. Hence, his actual loss of income is taken as Rs.43,348X4(months)= Rs.1,73,392/-/-.
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:28:56 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 12 Of 24 BK : 13 : towards loss of income as Rs.1,73,392/-.
(i) Loss of future income/earnings:
17. In the present case, petitioner has relied upon disability certificate issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya hospital noticing permanent disability of 62% in relation to left lower limb.
Though PW-2 Dr. Varan Phogat was examined from Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya hospital to prove the disability certificate, however he admitted that he was not the member of said Medical Board who issued disability certificate to petitioner. Further as per record of employment and salary, it is seen that petitioner did not suffer loss of job (as a store clerk) or reduction in salary due to the disability perhaps as his was a desk job. It is further observed that the age of petitioner at the time of medical examination for disability was 57 years and thus the entire disability could not necessary have been on account of injury sustained in the accident but also attributable to his old age.
For compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, the claimant must establish a direct link between the injuries from the accident and the permanent disability and loss of earning capacity claimed. The compensation under this head, is intended to restore the injured to the position where he was prior to the accident, as best as possible. The assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings depends on the effect and impact of the permanent disability on the claimant's earning capacity and not merely the percentage of permanent disability. It is therefore, necessary to differentiate between disability caused by the accident from a pre-existing condition (including age related ailments) that may be naturally arisen due to age related issues, CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:29:02 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 13 Of 24 BK : 14 : independent of the accident.
Petitioner admitted suffered no loss of employment or earnings and successfully retired from his job. It has not even been pleaded that the disabilities resulted in change in nature of his duties. Keeping in view these circumstances, the functional disability of the petitioner is taken as nil.
Since functional disability is assessed as nil, no future loss of income is being awarded.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
There neither any amputation nor any evidence has been led by the petitioner qua continuous future treatment. Hence, no compensation is being granted under this head.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
In this case, claimant has placed documents regarding his treatment and original paid bills to the tune of Rs.1,38,550/- and hence awarded. Certain other bills are only copies, as such cannot be awarded.
A sum of Rs.17,600/- under head of conveyance, Rs.20,000/- under the head of special diet and Rs.40,000/- towards cost of nursing/attendant is granted to the petitioner.
18. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under for injured:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.1,38,550/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs.17,600/-
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03
17:29:12 +0530
MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 14 Of 24 BK
: 15 :
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.40,000/-
(v) Loss of income:Rs.43,348X4 month Rs.1,73,392/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs alongwith Nil
its maintenance :
(vii) Any other loss/expenditure : Nil
Future Medical expenses.
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.1,00,000/-
physical shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed The petitioner has and nature of disability as permanent or suffered permanent temporary disability of 62% in relation to left lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Already granted capacity in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income: Nil
Total Compensation Rs.6,39,542/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation Rs.6,39,542/-
Digitally signed
CHARU GUPTA
by CHARU
GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03
17:29:18 +0530
MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 15 Of 24 BK
: 16 :
Interest Simple interest
@7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing of
DAR till actual
realization of
Award amount/
compensation.
19. The total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs.6,39,542/-. by insurance company with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
LIABILITY
20. As already decided, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by insurance company/respondent no.3 with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization.
21. In case, the interest of petitioners was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
22. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:29:25 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 16 Of 24 BK : 17 : ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA 2025.12.03 Date:
17:29:31 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 17 Of 24 BK : 18 : counsel as the case may be.
DISBURSEMENT
23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
24. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:29:37 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 18 Of 24 BK : 19 : Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
25. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners.
Digitally signed by CHARUCHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:29:43 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 19 Of 24 BK : 20 : However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Apportionment
26. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
27. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amountCHARU is invested Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:29:52 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 20 Of 24 BK : 21 : for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release CHARU of the Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:30:00 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 21 Of 24 BK : 22 : money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
28. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid CHARU Digitally signed by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:30:11 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 22 Of 24 BK : 23 : guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs.6,39,542/-, out of which Rs.3,39,542/- be released to him and remaining Rs.3,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.20,000/- alongwith simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization, in his bank account near his place of residence.
29. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others, Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal Officer of SBI having Phone no. 022-22741336/9414048606 and e-mail ID [email protected]. In case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal Officer may be contacted to. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court as contained in the orders dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 28.01.2019 2 Name of injured Kishan Ram 3 Age of the injured 55 years Digitally signed CHARU by CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.12.03 17:30:16 +0530 MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 23 Of 24 BK : 24 : 4 Occupation of the injured Attendant with M/s. Gymkhana Club 5 Income of the injured as on the Rs.36,777/- PM date of accident 6 Nature injury Disability 7 Medical treatment taken by the AIIMS Trauma Center, Holy injured: Family hospital 8 Period of Hospitalization 29.1.2019 to 05.02.2019, 28.03.2019 to30.03.2019, 09.04.2019 to11.04.2019, 07.05.2019 to 11.05.2019 9 Whether any permanent 62% in relation to left lower disability?
limb.
30. List for compliance on 05.01.2026 Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Announced in open Court GUPTA Date:
2025.12.03 17:30:23 On 03rd December, 2025 +0530 (Charu Gupta) PO-MACT-01(South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi MACT No.286/19 Kishan Ram v. Sheel Kumar P.No. 24 Of 24 BK