Delhi District Court
Pooja vs Bablu on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors.
MACT No. 321/2018
Ms. Pooja
D/o Sh. Suresh
R/o RZC-36, Old Roshan Pura,
Najafgarh South West Delhi
Delhi - 110 043 .....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Bablu (Driver)
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o Hulkawad
PS Zarif Nagar
Budaun
2. Naresh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Kirpa Ram
R/o VPO Wazirpur, Tehsil Beri, District Jhajjar
Haryana - 124 201
3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
having its registered office at:
New India Assurance Building,
87 M. G. Road, Fort
Mumbai - 400 001
....Respondents
Date of institution : 28.03.2018
Date of concluding arguments : 24.03.2026
Date of decision : 24.03.2026
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 1 of 26
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereafter "DAR") was filed by the Investigating Officer, ASI Manvir, in FIR number 58 dated 11.02.2018 lodged at police station Chhawala under Sections 279/337 of IPC regarding the injuries suffered by the petitioner, Ms. Pooja, in a road accident involving a tractor bearing registration number HR 77A 2500 and a water tanker attached thereto. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "MV Act"). 1.1 Respondent no. 1, Sh. Bablu, is the driver and respondent no. 2, Sh. Naresh, is the owner of the said tractor and water tanker. The respondent no. 3, The New India Assurance Company Limited, is the insurer of the said tractor. DAR
2. As per the DAR, the petitioner is a resident of Najafgarh. On 11.02.2018, she had gone out of her house for a walk in the area of Najafgarh. She was returning home on foot via Shyam Vihar road. At about 7:10 PM, when she had reached near Pehal Vatika, Shyam Vihar, Najafgarh, a tractor bearing registration number HR 77A 2500, being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from the Najafgarh side, and the rear wheel of the water tanker attached thereto ran over her foot. Resultantly, she sustained injuries.
2.1 With the help of public persons, the petitioner apprehended the driver of the tractor, Sh. Bablu (respondent no. 1), at the spot. She informed her mother telephonically, who reached the spot and removed her to Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital, Delhi for treatment.
Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the DAR was served on the respondents. 3.1 Respondent nos. 1 & 2 filed their joint written statement, wherein they, inter MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 2 of 26 alia, contended that they are not responsible or connected with the alleged accident in any manner. It is further contended that they have been falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer in the present case. They further claimed that the offending tractor bearing registration number HR 77A 2500 was duly insured with respondent no. 3 and that respondent no. 1 was holding a valid driving license at the relevant time. 3.2 Respondent no. 3 filed its written statement wherein it has admitted that the offending tractor bearing registration number HR 77A 2500 was insured with it. However, it denied its liability on the ground that the water tanker attached to the tractor was not insured with it, which, according to it, amounted to a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, respondent no. 3 has contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and is liable to be discharged from its liability.
Inquiry
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 17.05.2018 by my learned predecessor :
(1) Whether Pooja sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. HR 77A 2500 being driven by respondent no. 1 Bablu Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Naresh Kumar and insured by respondent no.3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Thereafter, the claim petition was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
5. Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.10.2023 of my learned predecessor on account of their non-
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 3 of 26 appearance.
6. In order to prove her claim, the petitioner examined two witnesses.
7. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. In her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), the petitioner deposed to the manner and circumstances of the accident in terms consistent with the version recorded in the DAR. She deposed that she had suffered injury on her left foot.
7.1 The petitioner has relied on the following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. PW 1/1 is the copy of her Aadhaar card.
Ex. PW 1/2 is the DAR.
Ex. PW1/3 is the copy of her MLC.
7.2 In her cross-examination, the petitioner denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to her negligence.
7.3 The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Subhash Chand, Record Clerk, MRD, DDU Hospital, as PW2. He produced the disability certificate bearing no. F.1(1)/DDU/MB/2024/30977 dated 14.08.2024, issued by the Medical Board of DDU Hospital in respect of the petitioner, which is exhibited as PW2/A.
8. After completion of petitioner's evidence, the matter was fixed for respondents' evidence.
9. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not examine any witness. Respondent no.3 examined one witness.
10. Respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Ganesh Chandra Alda, Administrative Officer of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., as R3W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. R3W1/A. In his evidence by way of affidavit, R3W1 deposed that the insurance MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 4 of 26 company is not liable to pay compensation as the water tankers attached with the offending tractor were not insured by it and the same amounted to violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 10.1 R3W1 relied on the following documents in support of his testimony:
Ex. R3W1/1 is the Policy Schedule - cum - Certificate of Insurance of the offending tractor bearing registration no. HR 77 A 2500. Ex. R3W1/2 is the carbon copy of the legal notice under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC addressed to respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Ex. R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4 are the corresponding postal receipts.
11. I have heard learned counsels Ms. Rashmi for the petitioner and Sh. Shyam Singh for the respondent no. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by them. I have also perused the record. My issue-
wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether Pooja sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. HR 77A 2500 being driven by respondent no. 1 Bablu Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Naresh Kumar and insured by respondent no.3 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.? OPP.
12. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on her testimony as well as the DAR.
13. At this stage, it will be worth to take a brief look at the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioner, in an accident case, before a claims tribunal.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 5 of 26 possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Others 2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal;
2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 6 of 26 the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
17. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in a claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioner. The petitioner is merely to establish her case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
18. The issue of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on record.
18.1 The accident took place on 11.02.2018 at about 7.10 pm and the FIR was lodged by the petitioner on the same day. Therefore, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR. The FIR specifically records the offending vehicle as a tractor HR 77A 2500 attached with water tanker.
18.2 On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1 under Sections 279, 337 of the IPC showing the involvement of offending tractor bearing registration number HR 77A 2500 attached with two water tankers.
18.3 In the criminal case arising out of the accident, the learned MM-07, South-
West District, Dwarka Court, vide order dated 07.12.2022 passed in Cr. Case no. 26413/2018 titled as State vs. Bablu has framed charges against the respondent no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337 of IPC.
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 7 of 26 18.4 The arrest memo of the respondent no. 1 shows that he was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident on 12.02.2018. 18.5 As per the seizure memo dated 12.02.2018, offending tractor bearing registration number HR 77A 2500, attached with two water tankers, was seized by police from the spot of the accident.
18.6 The deposition of petitioner with regard to the accident and the negligence of respondent no. 1 is largely consistent and inspires confidence. 18.7 The medical evidence on record further provides credence to the DAR.
The MLC no. 1055 of DDU Hospital, Delhi records that Ms. Pooja was brought to the said hospital at about 10:25 pm on 11.02.2018 with history of road accident and had suffered injuries.
19. As regards the stand of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement that they are neither responsible for nor connected with the alleged accident and have been falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer, the same does not inspire confidence and is liable to be rejected. In view of the documentary and ocular evidence discussed hereinabove, and in the absence of any defence evidence led by respondent nos. 1 and 2, their contentions cannot be accepted.
20. Taking a holistic view, it stands proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending tractor bearing registration number HR 77A 2500 attached with water tankers being driven by respondent no. 1, Sh. Bablu, and owned by respondent no. 2, Sh. Naresh, thereby causing injuries to the petitioner.
Issue No. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 8 of 26 and from whom? OPP.
21. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. In view of finding on Issue No. 1, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation for the injury suffered by her in the road accident.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and held:
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, 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."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the principles regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:
"19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 9 of 26 same as the percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0773/2013, while dealing with the case of a 24 years old model and actress, who had suffered grievous injuries on her face and parts of her body held as follows:
"38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the Appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made by this Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the Appellant's permanent disability should be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability..."
24. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that permanent physical disability is not the same as functional disability. Permanent physical disability refers to the medical assessment of the loss or impairment of a part of the body as a result of an injury. Functional disability, on the other hand, relates to the extent to which such physical disability affects the petitioner's ability to perform his or her job or earning capacity. Functional disability may be less than, equal to, or in some cases MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 10 of 26 more than the permanent physical disability based on the nature of the petitioner's work and the injury's impact on earning capacity. The same permanent disability may result in different degrees of functional disability or loss of earning capacity in different individuals, depending on factors such as the nature of their profession, occupation or job, as well as their age, educational background and other relevant circumstances. Functional Disability of the Petitioner
25. The disability of the petitioner was assessed by the duly constituted Medical Board of DDU Hospital, Delhi, in compliance with the order dated 22.02.2024 of my learned predecessor.
25.1 As per the disability certificate (Ex. PW2/A) bearing no.
F.1(1)/DDU/MB/2024/30977 issued by the said medical board dated 14.08.2024, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 3% in relation to left lower limb.
25.2 As per her Aadhaar card (Ex. PW1/1), the petitioner was 17 years of age at the time of accident. The petitioner has stated in the FIR that she was studying in class 10th at the time of accident.
25.3 The permanent physical disability of 3% suffered by the petitioner cannot ipso facto be equated with the loss of earning capacity. The extent of functional disability has to be assessed by the Tribunal having regard to the injuries suffered, the vocation of the petitioner and the impact of such disability on her earning capacity. Considering the extent of the injuries, the age, the fact she was studying in Class X and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the permanent physical disability of 3% is assessed to have resulted in 1.5% functional disability or loss of earning capacity.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 11 of 26 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure
26. The petitioner has not placed on record any medical bills. The petitioner was treated at DDU Hospital, which is a government hospital. In view of the same, petitioner is not entitled to anything under the head medicines and treatment.
27. The petitioner has not produced any bills regarding conveyance and special diet. Keeping in view that the petitioner suffered permanent physical disability due to injuries suffered in the accident, she is entitled to ₹ 20,000/- under the head special diet and ₹ 20,000/- under the head conveyance.
28. The petitioner has not produced any bills regarding hiring of an attendant. 28.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some family members for the benefit of tortfeasor. 28.2 In view of the ratio laid down in Kumari Lalita (supra) and considering that the petitioner was a minor who had sustained injuries, she would have required the services of an attendant. Accordingly, a sum of ₹20,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges.
Loss of schooling/studies (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured
29. The petitioner has stated in the FIR that she was studying in Class X at the time of the accident.
29.1 The petitioner has neither produced the attendance register nor examined any witness from her school to establish that she had missed classes on account of the injury.
29.2 Considering that the petitioner sustained injuries resulting in permanent MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 12 of 26 physical disability, it is reasonable to infer that she would have missed school for a period of three months and thereby suffered loss of studies. 29.3 Taking a reasonable and pragmatic view of the matter and considering that the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability, a lumpsum of ₹50,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of schooling/studies.
Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel VS.
Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr., 2025 INSC 1070, held:
"15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court's interference, applying well- established principles of law."
30.1 Keeping in view the settled position of law and the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Delhi, her notional income is taken on the basis of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in Delhi as on the date of the accident, that is, 11.02.2018, which were ₹16,468/- per month.
30.2 As per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier has to be taken on the basis of the age of the petitioner and for the age group 15-20 years, a multiplier of 18 is applicable. The petitioner is also entitled to addition of 40% of the established income towards future prospects since she was below 40 years of age at the time of accident.
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 13 of 26 30.3 Accordingly, the loss of future earnings is computed as under:
Annual Income before the accident = ₹16,468/- x 12 = ₹1,97,616/- Future Prospects (addition of 40% of the established income) =₹79,046.4 Annual Income including Future Prospects (A)= ₹2,76,662.4 Loss of Future Earning per annum (1.5 % of A) = ₹4,149.936 Multiplier applicable with reference to age = 18 Loss of Future Earnings = ₹4,149.936 x 18 = ₹74,698.848 Future medical expenses
31. No evidence has been led by the petitioner regarding future medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
32. The following factors that are to be taken into account for assessing compensation under the head pain and suffering:
i. Nature of injury ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred iii. Surgeries, if any iv. Confinement in hospital v. Duration of the treatment As per the disability certificate dated 14.08.2024, the petitioner has suffered "post traumatic stiff ankle with foot with permanent physical disability of 3 % in relation to left lower limb". In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to ₹30,000/- under the head pain and suffering and ₹15,000/- towards mental and physical shock.
Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
33. In her cross-examination, the petitioner admitted that she was married in the MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 14 of 26 year 2018. Therefore, she is not entitled to any amount towards loss of prospects of marriage. However, the permanent physical disability suffered by the petitioner is likely to affect her overall health, quality of life, and lifestyle. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹20,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)
34. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation on account of loss of expectation of life. Other heads claimed by the petitioner:
35. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation to the petitioner under any other head.
36. The compensation payable under various heads is summarized below:
Serial Heads Amount No. Pecuniary damages (Special damages) 1. Medicines & Treatment Nil 2. Special Diet ₹20,000/- 3. Conveyance ₹20,000/- 4. Attendant Charges ₹20,000/-
5. Loss of schooling during the period of ₹50,000/-
treatment
6. Loss of Future Earnings ₹74,698.848 Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
7. Pain & Suffering ₹30,000/-
8. Mental & Physical Shock ₹15,000/-
9. Loss of amenities of life (and/or loss of ₹20,000/-
prospects of marriage)
Total ₹2,49,698.848 (rounded
off to ₹2,50,000/-)
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 15 of 26
Liability
37. Respondent no. 1, being the principal tortfeasor, is primarily liable to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2, being the registered owner of the offending tractor, is vicariously liable for the acts of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 3 has admitted that the offending tractor, bearing registration number HR 77A 2500, was insured with it against third- party risks on the date of the accident.
38. Respondent no. 3, however, has disputed its liability on the ground that, although the tractor was insured with it, the water tanker attached thereto was not insured, which, according to it, amounted to a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance contract. Consequently, respondent no. 3 has sought either complete exoneration from liability or, alternatively, recovery rights against the respondent nos. 1 & 2.
38.1 Respondent no. 3 has proved the Policy Schedule - cum - Certificate of Insurance (Ex. R3W1/1). It has also proved that a notice under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC (Ex. R3W1/2), addressed to respondent nos. 1 & 2, was duly dispatched by post (Ex. R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4).
39. Per contra, the petitioner has opposed the contention of respondent no. 3.
Reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Honnamma & Others, 2025 INSC 625 wherein it was held as under:
10. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the incident occurred while a tractor which was insured with the Appellant was attached to a trailer and on the trailer a person was present who due to an unfortunate accident, fell off the trailer which was being pulled by/driven by/attached to the tractor, resulting in the death of such person.
11. Therefore, the undisputed position is that the trailer was being pulled by/attached to the tractor and then the trailer on which the deceased was present, turned turtle/upturned, resulting in his death. From the above, it is clear that the tractor which was insured was the reason for the accident. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the trailer stand-
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 16 of 26 alone, the accident happened. To explain, we may give an example: that had the trailer been stationary at a place and due to some reason, it overturned or a mishap happened, then without the trailer being specifically insured the Appellant would not be liable to pay, but here the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the trailer and in such sequence of events, the trailer upturned. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare-oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality.
40. This Tribunal has considered the submissions and the material on record. In the present case, the accident occurred while a tractor, which was admittedly insured with respondent no. 3, was attached to two water tankers. The water tankers were being pulled by the said tractor and, in the course of such movement, the rear tyre of one of these water tankers ran over the foot of the petitioner. Indisputably, the accident occurred during the use of the insured tractor and in a continuous chain of events arising therefrom. It is not a case where a water tanker, standing independently and uninsured, was the sole or proximate cause of the injury.
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 17 of 26 40.1 In view of the law laid down in Smt. Honnamma (supra), where the tractor is the root cause of the accident, the liability of the insurer of the tractor extends to the consequences arising through the attached trailer or water tanker. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the said judgment and the contention of respondent no. 3 is, therefore, liable to be rejected.
40.2 It is settled that the onus to prove breach of policy conditions lies upon the insurer. In the present case, although respondent no. 3 has alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, it has failed to place on record the relevant policy terms and conditions. The respondent no. 3 has merely proved the Policy Schedule-cum-Certificate of Insurance (Ex. R3W1/1). 40.3 Perusal of the said Policy Schedule (Ex. R3W1/1) shows that the offending tractor was insured under a "Commercial Vehicle Package Policy". The learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has not pointed out any specific condition stated in the said Policy Schedule which stands violated by respondent nos. 1 and 2.
40.4 The aforesaid notice (Ex. R3W1/2), addressed to respondent nos. 1 and 2, calls upon them to produce the insurance policy of the tractor but does not specifically require production of the insurance policy of the attached water tankers. In the absence of a specific requisition in this regard, no adverse inference can be drawn against respondent nos. 1 and 2 for non-production of the said document.
40.5 In the absence of any cogent evidence of breach, respondent no. 3 cannot avoid its statutory liability towards third-party compensation.
41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal holds that respondent no. 3 is liable to indemnify respondent nos. 1 and 2 and to pay the compensation to the petitioner, with no right of recovery against the other respondents. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 18 of 26 Issue No. 3: Relief
42. In view of findings on Issue No. 2, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of ₹2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition that is, 28.03.2018 till the date of compliance that is, 23.04.2026. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be excluded from the award amount.
Direction(s) to Respondent No. 343. In terms of Section 168(3) of the MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/transferred by respondent no. 3, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner and her counsel.
Release
44. The statement of the petitioner regarding her financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
45. The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioner and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details
Ms. Pooja A/c no. 43921433994 at State Bank of India, Branch District
Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka.
IFSC Code: SBIN0011566
46. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 19 of 26 Ors. FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021.
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020, has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
48. Keeping in view the quantum of the award, the expenses incurred by her on treatment, fifty percent (50%) of the award amount be immediately released to the petitioner.
49. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the award amount be kept in the form of one fixed deposit receipt (FDR) for a period of one year in terms of the aforesaid MACAD scheme.
Directions to Bank(s)
50. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, Delhi is directed to comply, accordingly. The said Manager is further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT accounts of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDR 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 petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDR without permission of this Tribunal.
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 20 of 26
(d) The bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner for her MACT account. 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.
51. The Form-XVI of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 11.02.2018
2. Name of injured: Ms. Pooja
3. Age of the injured: 17 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured: Student (as claimed)
5. Income of the injured: ₹16,468/- per month
6. Nature of injury: Permanent physical disability of 3% in relation to the left lower limb.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: DDU Hospital, Delhi.
8. Period of hospitalization: From 12.04.2018 to 17.04.2018 (Discharge Summary Sheet of DDU Hospital, Delhi not exhibited by the petitioner).
9. Whether any permanent disability? Yes. Permanent physical disability of 3% in relation to the left lower limb.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 21 of 26
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹20,000/- (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹20,000/- (v) Cost of artificial limb Nil. (vi) Loss of earning capacity ₹74,698.848 (vii) Loss of schooling ₹50,000/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require any Nil special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of her life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical ₹15,000/-
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹30,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹20,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, As above.
disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and nature 3% permanent physical disability of disability as permanent or temporary in left lower limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of Not Applicable MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 22 of 26 life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 1.5% relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income -(Income x % Included in 11(vi) Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹2,49,698.848 (rounded off to ₹2,50,000/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED Simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the petition (28.03.2018) till the date of compliance (23.04.2026).
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum.
16. Interest amount up to the date of award ₹1,49,792/-
17. Total amount including interest up to the ₹3,99,792/-
date of award
18. Award amount released 50%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 50%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount Account Transfer to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the award 23.04.2026
52. The Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 23 of 26
1. Date of the accident 11.02.2018
2. Date of filing of Form-I First Accident Not Known Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Not Known Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Not Known owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not Known Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Not Known VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- 28.03.2018 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether No action warranted at this stage.
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not Known Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No. Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimants(s) of No. the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 24.03.2026 MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 24 of 26
15. Whether the claimants(s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimants(s) 28.03.2018 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near her place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimants(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 05.04.2025 the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the R/o RZC-36, Roshan Pura, claimant(s) Najafgarh, South West Delhi, Delhi
- 110 043.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near her place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain her/their financial condition?
53. Dasti copy of Award be given to the parties free of cost.
54. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Manager State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi for his information/compliance:
55. Copy of Award be also sent to the concerned ld. Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 25 of 26
56. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
57. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 27.04.2026 for compliance report.
58. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed SUDEEP by SUDEEP RAJ SAINI RAJ Date: SAINI 2026.03.24 14:45:49 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI) COURT ON 24.03.2026 PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI MACT No. 321/2018 Pooja vs. Bablu & Ors. Page No. 26 of 26