Delhi District Court
Arjun (I) (Fir 220/2023/Kashmere Gate) vs Surender Kumar (Oriental Insu) on 8 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010098822023
MACT No. : 658/2023
FIR No. : 220/2023
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Mr. Arjun (injured/petitioner)
S/o Mr. Chhote Singh,
R/o L-29/12, Gali No.06,
Jai Prakash Nagar, Delhi.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Surender Kumar Jha (driver)
S/o Sh. R.K. Jha,
R/o E-2/20, Gali no. 03,
Usmanpur, Delhi.
2. Goverdhan Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd.
B-2, Tyagi Vihar, Nangli, New Delhi.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
At B-50, ST-3, Radheshyam Park,
Delhi-110051.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 24.07.2023
Judgment reserved on : 03.05.2025
Date of Award : 08.05.2025
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 1 of 29
AWAR D
The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed on 24.07.2023
was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The DAR revealed
that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 17.02.2023 at about 03:45
PM at Mori Gate Khoya Mandi, Delhi wherein the petitioner, Arjun, had
sustained grievous injuries. The accident took place with a vehicle
bearing registration No. DL-1PD-3653 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1, Sh. Surender Kumar, owned by respondent no.2,
Goverdhan Transport Co. and insured with respondent no.3, The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that the information of an accident was received on 17.02.2023 at P.S. Kashmere Gate vide DD No. 43A. HC Girraj Meena along with HC Sandeep Dahiya went to the spot i.e. at Mori Gate Khoya Mandi where he got to know that the injured had been taken to hospital by PCR vehicle. After leaving HC Sandeep Dahiya at the spot, HC Girraj Meena went to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi and collected MLC bearing no. 369/23 of the injured. IO could not record the statement of the injured as the injured told the IO that he will give his statement later after coming to the police station. On 03.03.2023, injured came to the police station and got his statement recorded. On the basis of MLC of injured and spot of incident, FIR was registered under section 279/337 IPC and investigation was initiated.
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 2 of 293. Thereafter, IO and complainant went to the spot and prepared the site plan of the spot of accident at the instance of the complainant. He had searched for the CCTV cameras but he could not find the same. IO returned to the police station and served the notice under Section 133 M.V. Act upon the owner of the offending vehicle who had produced the driver of the offending vehicle. IO arrested the driver of the offending vehicle, however, since the offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds. The owner of the offending vehicle handed over the attested copies of the documents of the offending vehicle to the IO. The driver of the offending vehicle had also handed over his DL to the IO. The Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was got conducted. The IO collected the MLC of the injured after final opinion wherein, the injury sustained by the petitioner was shown as 'grievous'. Therefore, section 337 of IPC was replaced with Section 338 of IPC. On completion of investigation, chargesheet under section 279/338 IPC was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle and DAR was filed before the court on 24.07.2023.
4. Written statement on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 was filed and respondent no. 3/insurance company filed its legal offer.
5. Since, legal offer was filed, the matter was listed for arguments on the point of quantum vide order dated 26.04.2025. The Petitioner filed Form XIV. Financial statement of the petitioner was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner and all the respondents.
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 3 of 29FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
6. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld. Counsels for the respondents and perused the record. My findings are as under:-
Computation of compensation:
7. With respect to computation of compensation in MACT cases, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had encapsulated the law in its guiding lamp post judgment of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, where it was held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. 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 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. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 4 of 29 SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. 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 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).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i),
(ii)(a) and (iv). 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. 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. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) --
depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items (iv),
(v) and (vi) -- involves determination of lump sum MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 5 of 29 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. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item
(ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with reference to a MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 6 of 29 particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 7 of 29 used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement,
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
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 MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 8 of 29 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 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. Be that as it may."
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 9 of 298. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. However, in cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would depend upon the age of victim, nature of injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect thereof on life of the petitioner. The process would involve determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those heads. In the case of assessment of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, this Tribunal needs to first ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent disability or partial permanent disability. If the disability has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to any specific limb then the effect of such disability of the limb on the function of entire body has to be ascertained. Once, the permanent disability is ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning capacity of the claimant. To ascertain the same, the Tribunal needs to MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 10 of 29 ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After ascertaining the functional disability through the above process, the Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month. The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be ascertained as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC 2009 ACJ 1298 SC according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning capacity. This is a case where permanent disability is claimed and compensation is also demanded qua future loss of earnings on account of permanent disability, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 11 of 29Determination of Injuries and Duration of the Treatment:
9. It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner/injured and duration of treatment as they need to be kept in mind while ascertaining the compensation under different applicable heads. The injured/ petitioner was treated vide MLC No. 369/23 and the alleged history has been mentioned as road traffic accident. As per the MLC, the nature of the injury has been opined to be 'grievous'.
10. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an application to be examined for assessment of physical disability. He was examined by the Medical Board at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital and vide certificate bearing No. 1984 dated 20.05.2024, it has been observed that the petitioner is a case of "FUC of Copd @ 4th toe (left)" and the Board was of the opinion that he has 18% permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb.
11. From the above deposition and in totality of the circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to bring on record sufficient facts so as to prove at the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1PD-3653 by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury and permanent disability of 18% in relation to his left lower limb. It has also been proved that the petitioner was MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 12 of 29 hospitalised on the date of accident i.e. 17.02.2023 in Loknayak Hospital, New Delhi-110002. However, his discharge summary is not on record, thus, the period of hospitalization cannot be established. Thus, his compensation is computed as follows:
Medical expenses:
12. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses in his Form-XIV, however, he has not placed any medical bill on record to prove the same. Yet, since he had sustained grievous injuries and disability, he must have incurred some expense on his medical record. Therefore, the petitioner/injured Arjun shall be entitled to Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
13. Coming to the aspect of loss of income, the petitioner has claimed loss of income for 12 months to the tune of Rs. 5,52,000/- under this head. To prove his income, the petitioner examined Mr. Vinod, Labour Suprevisor, CS (Parcel) New Delhi Railway Station as PW-1 who proved the salary slip of the petitioner as Ex. PW-1/3. As per the salary slip of the petitioner, his gross pay is Rs. 70,490/- and income tax of Rs. 23,780/- has been deducted. Thus, his net salary for the purposes of calculating compensation shall be concluded to be Rs. 70,490/- minus Rs.23,780/- which is Rs. 46,710/-. Therefore, it is held that the monthly income of the petitioner/ injured Arjun at the time of the accident i.e. on 17.02.2023 was Rs. 46,710/-. Furthermore, the petitioner has claimed that he had not worked for more than 12 months.Therefore, keeping in MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 13 of 29 view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the Loss of Income for 12 months i.e. Rs. 46,710/- x 12 = Rs. 5,60,520/-.
Pain and Suffering:
14. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is true that a particular amount cannot be fixed under the head pain and suffering which could be applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner has received grievous injuries, therefore, petitioner must have suffered pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in the MLC as well as the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental shock:
15. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under the head mental shock. While the mental shock suffered by the petitioner cannot be estimated in terms of money but considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental shock.
Special Diet:
16. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head special diet but there is no cogent evidence on record regarding money MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 14 of 29 spent by the petitioner upon special diet. However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this head.
Hence, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
Conveyance charges:
17. The petitioner has claimed Rs.30,000/- under the head conveyance charges but there is no cogent evidence for the same.
However, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that petitioner must have incurred some expense on conveyance. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
18. The petitioner has claimed Rs.50,000/- under the head attendant charges. There is no cogent evidence to prove this, however, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this Tribunal hereby grants compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges.
Compensation for disfiguration:
19. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under this head and taking into account the injuries suffered by him and also noticing the disability suffered by him, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 15 of 29 petitioner under this head.
Compensation for loss of amenities:
20. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.50,000/- under this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove his claim towards loss of amenities. However, taking into account the injuries suffered by him and also noticing the disability suffered by him, Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Compensation for loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
21. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs.50,000/- under this head. The petitioner has not filed anything on record to prove his claim, however, taking into account the injuries suffered by him and also noticing the disability suffered by him, Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Future loss of income:
22. The petitioner Arjun has claimed loss of future earning to the extent of Rs.7,87,937/- in his Form XIV. It has already been established that the petitioner has suffered 18% disability in relation to his left lower limb. Therefore, the functional disability of the petitioner is assessed at 9% in relation to the whole body for the purposes of calculating the compensation. The income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs. 46,710/- as on the date of accident.
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 16 of 2923. As per the Aadhar Card bearing no. 2724 7132 6970, the date of birth of the injured/ petitioner Arjun Singh is 10.04.1965, thus, as on the date of accident i.e. 09.09.2018, the petitioner was aged 57 years 10 months and 07 days old. Thus, he was more than 57 years old and less than 58 years of age. Accordingly, the Multiplier of nine (09) is taken for purposes of calculating the loss of income of the petitioner (Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision - 31.10.2017). Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of Arjun Singh shall be 15% as he was employed and within the age bracket of 50 and 60 years at the time of accident on 17.02.2023.
24. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 46,710/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 46,710/-
Annual Income Rs. 46,710/- x 12 =
Rs. 5,60,520/-
Add Future Prospects @ 15% Rs. 5,60,520/- x 15% =
Rs. 84,078/-
Total income Rs. 6,44,598/-
Disability @ 9% Rs. 6,44,598/- x 9%= Rs. 58,013.82/-
Loss of Income after multiplier (9) Rs. 58,013.82/- x 9 = Rs. 5,22,124.38/-
(rounded off to Rs. 5,22,124/-)
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 17 of 29
25. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 5,22,124/- under the head future loss of income.
26. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 5,000/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 46,710/- Loss of income Rs. 5,60,520/- Add future prospects Rs. 84,078/-
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 5,22,124/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000 Suffering = Rs. 1,00,000/-
Special diet Rs. 10,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/- Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Disfiguration Rs. 50,000/- Loss of Marriage prospects Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 18 of 29
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 13,67,644/-
27. In the case of Benson George v Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded an interest of 6% per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 24.07.2023 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
28. The Financial Statement of the petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- per month.
29. Keeping in view the above as well as the fact that the petitioner has already spent a huge amount on his treatment, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 13,67,644/ (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Four only), Rs. 1,67,644/ (Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Four only) plus entire interest amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Arjun Singh and the balance amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs only) shall be put in 40 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 19 of 29 month to 40 months respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
30. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
31. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by 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.:
(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.MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 20 of 29
(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.
32. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 17.02.2023
2. Name of the Injured: Arjun
3. Age of the Injured: 57 years
4. Occupation of the Injured: Parcel Porter, Commercial, Railway Department.
5. Income of the Injured: Rs. 46,710/-
6. Nature of Injury: Grievous MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 21 of 29
7. Medical Treatment taken: Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi.
8. Period of Hospitalization: Not proved.
9. Whether any permanent 18% disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs.5,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 10,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 46,710/-
(vi) Loss of income of 12 months Rs. 5,22,124/-
(vii) Add future prospects @ 25 % Rs. 84,078/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Nil.
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life: future treatment and
future attendant charges.
2.
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 50,000 + Rs. 50,000=
physical shock Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 22 of 29
(iv) Disfiguration
Rs. 50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience,
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, Rs. 50,000/-
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature of disability as 18% Permanent permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 09% capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Rs. 5,22,124/-
x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 13,67,644/-
1(i+ii+iii+iv+vi) +2(i+ii+iii+iv+vi) + 3(iv)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 13,67,644/-
Interest awarded 6%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous
award passed by Ld. -
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 23 of 29
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 1,46,793.83/-
award w.e.f. 24.07.2023 (01 year
09 months and 14 days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 15,14,437.83/-
(rounded off to Rs. 15,14,438/-)
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 29
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para no. 29
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 29
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 08.06.2025
award
LIABILITY:
33. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1, Surender Kumar; owned by respondent no. 2, Goverdhan Transport Co. and insured with respondent no. 3, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Thus, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are liable and respondent no.3 is liable to indemnify respondent nos. 1 and 2. Thus, respondent no.3. shall pay the award amount to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
RELIEF
34. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,67,644/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Four only) along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 24.07.2023 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 24 of 29 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
35. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 08.06.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 25 of 29 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL ASRANI
ASRANI Date:
Announced in the open Court today 2025.05.08
16:32:51 +0530
on this 8th day of May, 2025.
(Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 26 of 29
FORM - XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 17.02.2023 2 Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report (FAR) 10.03.2023 3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) Not mentioned 4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver Not mentioned 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner Not mentioned 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance of Not mentioned the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form VIB from the Victim(s) Not mentioned 8 Date of filing of Form-VII - 24.07.2023 Detail Accident Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, No. whether any action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Insurance Company Not provided 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company Yes. admitted his report within 30 MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 27 of 29 days of the DAR? 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the No. Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer of the No response Insurance Company. 14 Date of award 08.05.2025 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open savings bank Yes. account(s) near their place of residence? 16 Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open Savings Bank Account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN card and Aadhar 24.07.2023 Card and the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). 17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the Not produced. place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhaar Card? 18 Permanent residential address of As per Award. the claimant(s). 19 Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes. MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 28 of 29 bank account(s) is near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of passing Yes. The Financial Statement of the of the Award to ascertain claimant has been recorded. his/their financial condition? Digitally signed by RUCHI RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI AGGARWAL Date: ASRANI 2025.05.08 16:32:59 +0530 (Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) PO, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 08.05.2025 MACT No.658/2023 Arjun Vs. Surender Kumar and ors. Page 29 of 29