Delhi District Court
Suresh Kumar vs Maruti on 3 February, 2026
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No:16/2024
Suresh Kumar vs. Maruti Logistics
CNR No.DLSE01-000129-2024
1. Suresh Kumar
S/o Sh.Mahabir Singh
R/o Village Mokhra Khas, Pana
PS Bahuakbarpur, Rohtak Haryana
....Claimant/Petitioner
Versus
1. Sahun
S/o Mohammed Kha
R/o Village Tebass,
PS Tapukara, Alwar Rajasthan,
.....Driver/respondent no.1
2. M/s. Maruti Logistics Sh. Mohit Padam (owner) R/o NA -675, Maruti Logistics Village Bajirput, PO Jhamri, Jhajar, Haryana ....Owner/respondent no.2
3. New India Assurance Co.LTD.
Office at: 3rd Floor, Bhandari House-
91, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
....Insurance company/respondent no.3 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 1 of 27 ss :2: Date of accident : 26.03.2022 Result of accident : Grievous Injury Date of filing of claim petition : 05.01.2024 Date of Decision : 03.02.2026 AWARD
1. The present claim petition arises out of a road accident that occurred on 26.03.2022, in which one Suresh Kumar (aged about 48 years) allegedly suffered grievous injury.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.03.2022, petitioner was travelling in vehicle bearing no.HR-63B-6529 from Palwal to Charkhi Dadri. When he reached KMP Express, near Panchgoan Toll Tax, Haryana, tyre of his vehicle got punctured. Petitioner parked the said vehicle on the left side of the road for changing the tyre. At about 9 p.m, a goods carrying truck bearing no.HR-63E-5363 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), came driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle whose tyre petitioner was changing. Due to this collision, victim sustained injuries. He was taken to PGI Hospital where he received medial treatment.
3. An FIR no.0261/2023, dated 08.07.2023 was registered u/s 279,338 of IPC PS- Bilaspur, District Gurugram. Matter was investigated and a chargesheet was filed before concerned criminal court while a claim petition was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is the driver, respondent no.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 2 of 27 ss :3:
5. Respondent no.1 and 2 did not file any reply despite opportunity.
In its reply respondent no.3/insurance company denied its liability to compensate the petitioner on the ground of enormous delay between occurrence of the accident (on 26.03.2022) and registration of FIR (on 08.07.2023). Insurance company has thus doubted the veracity of the claim alleging possible collusion between the petitioner and respondent no.1 and 2 and suspected planting of the vehicle. It has further been pleaded that the compensation payable, if any, is liable to be deducted on account of contributory negligence of the petitioner as the petitioner's medical report/MLC reflects presence of alcohol in his breath. It is however not denied that the offending vehicle was insured by respondent no.3 in the name of M/s Maruti Logistics vide policy no.35380231210300001711, valid and effective from 26.10.2021 to 25.10.2022.
6. Vide order dated 25.07.2025, following issues were framed.
1. Whether the accident occurred on 26.03.2023 or 26.03.2022, and if so, whether the petition is bared by limitation?
2. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 26.03.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR 63E-5263 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3?OPP.
3. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
4. Relief.
7. In order to prove his claim, petitioner examined HC Ashok MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 3 of 27 ss :4: Kumar as PW1 and himself as PW1. Raghubir, s/o Sh. Mangal examined as PW3.
PW-1/HC Ashok Kumar was a summoned witness and IO in the present matter with FIR No.261/2023, u/s 279/338 IPC dated 08.07.2023 PS Bilaspur, District Gurugram, Haryana. On 08.07.2023, he was posted at PS Bilaspur, complainant Suresh Kumar, came to PS and handed over a written complaint to him along with his medical treatment record from PGI, Rohtak.Upon such complaint, he prepared rukka and handed over the same to MCM for registration of Fir, the complaint as Ex.PW1/1. PW-1 further deposed that he visited the spot of the accident along with the complainant on the same date. PW-1 prepared site plan on the instance of the complainant. Same as Ex.PW1/2. PW-1 recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC. Pw-1 also given notice u/s 133 MV Act to owner of the offending vehicle as Ex.PW1/3. Driver namely Sahun joined the investigation and got arrested and released by him as per guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. PW-1 collected the relevant documents pertaining to the offending vehicle from the owner of offending vehicle. PW-1 collected and verified the medical treatment record of the victim from PGI Rohtak. The medical treatment record of the injured as Ex.PW1/4. PW-1 received a complaint on dated 08.07.2023, in the complaint the date of accident mentioned as 26.03.2022 but in FIR which was lodged on 08.07.2023 due to computer operator mistake the date of the accident written as 26.03.2023.
PW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
PW-2/Suresh Kumar led evidence by way of affidavit as MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 4 of 27 ss :5: Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of the claim petition. He stated that on 26.03.2022 at about 9 p.m, he met with a road accident near Panchgoan Toll Tax (Haryana), while changing tyre of the vehicle bearing no.HR-63B-6529, which was blowout during journey. At the time of changing tyre, necessary precautions were taken by putting reflector sign as well as shrubs behind the vehicle. Helper Raghubir was standing behind the vehicle in order to indicate the vehicles coming from backside.
He further deposed that at the time of changing tyre of his vehicle came at a high speed and negligent manner and even ignored Raghubir's indication and hit the victim. Due to this impact, victim suffered serious injuries and became unconscious. Someone has called at emergency no.1033 to inform about the accident and he was taken to PGI, Rohtak where he remained from 27.03.2022 till 01.04.2022 for treatment. PW-1 suffered 35% disability from Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya, Hospital.
PW-2 was relied upon his Adhar card as Ex.CW2/1, photographs of victim's vehicle and offending vehicle as Mark A, certified copy of discharge summary and medical documents as already Ex.PW1/4, disability certificate as Ex.CW2/2, complaint copy dated 11.05.2022 marked as Mark B and copy of FIR as Ex.CW2/3.
PW-2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company.
PW-3 Raghubir was a summoned witness in the present case. The accident occurred on 26.03.2022. He made a complaint against the offending vehicle which is already marked as Mark B. PW-3 was duly examined by learned counsel for insurance MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 5 of 27 ss :6: company.
No evidence was led by the respondents despite opportunity.
8. Final arguments were addressed by parties. On the basis of material on record and evidence adduced. Issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1Whether the accident occurred on 26.03.2023 or 26.03.2022, and if so, whether the petition is bared by limitation?
9. Insurance company has claimed that the accident may have taken place on 26.03.2022 and if so, there is a delay of more than one year in preferring the claim. It is a matter of record and admitted by both parties that the FIR was registered on 08.07.2023. It is therefore that the insurance company has challenged the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that it barred by limitation, being filed beyond 6 months.
Petitioner, during his evidence, has reiterated the accident had occurred on 26.03.2022 and has relied upon a complaint purportedly made by his helper Raghbir dated 11.05.2022, which also mentions the date of accident i.e. 26.03.2022. A subsequent handwritten complaint, addressed to SHO Bilaspur, Gurugram was filed by petitioner on 08.07.2023 which is Ex.PW1/1. It is on basis of this complaint that FIR was registered. Complaint Ex.PW1/1 reveals that the year of accident has been apparently overwritten as 2023 from 2022. Since petitioner himself has claimed (not only in his claim petition but also in his evidence by way of affidavit and the complaint written by PW-3 Raghbir), the MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 6 of 27 ss :7: accident to have taken place on 26.03.2022, the date appearing as 26.03.2023 in the FIR appears to be a typographical error. As such, as per the own case of the petitioner, the accident occurred on 26.03.2022 but was first reported by him on 08.07.2023 i.e. after one year 4 months from the accident.
The defence of the insurance company arises only from the fact that the accident occurred on 26.03.2022. This fact stands proved from the record i.e. contents of the claim petition as well as evidence by way of affidavit, the MLC of the petitioner and the chargesheet. To hold such delay as a bar to the maintanability of the claim, it must be seen that the accident is proved to have occurred on 26.03.2022 i.e. before coming into force of amendment Motor Vehicle Act, 2019 w.e.f. 01-04-2022 introduced in Section 166, a limitation period of 6 months for filing the accident claim. The accident took place before the amendment came into effect and therefore bar of limitation would not apply in the present case.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided.
Issue no.2.
Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 26.03.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR 63E-5263 being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3?OPP.
10. 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. MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 7 of 27 ss :8: 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.
11. In the present case, petitioner who is also the victim has testified as an eye witness. He has categorically deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. He has testified that the accident occurred while he was changing the punctured tyre of his vehicle while having parked his vehicle on the left side of the road and indicated the same by putting reflectors and shrubs behind the vehicle. He further pleaded that even his helper Raghbir was standing behind his vehicle to caution the vehicles coming from behind. He has further testified that the driver of the offending vehicle came at a high speed and ignored the indications.
12. These allegations have not been refuted by the driver of the offending vehicle or the owner thereof. None of them have disputed the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident or the allegations of rash and negligent driving by respondent no.1. HC Ashok Kumar who was examined as PW1 also testified that the photographs of the offending vehicle had been handed over to him by the petitioner. The MLC of the petitioner which was prepared on 26.03.2022 i.e. the same date as that of the accident, also indicates injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road side accident. During cross- examination of PW1 by the counsel for insurance company, PW1 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 8 of 27 ss :9: admitted to have gone to PGI Rohtak to collect the MLC after making a proper DD entry. Even petitioner testifying as PW2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for insurance company however, the MLC of the victim prepared on the date of accident and the complaint made by him on 08.07.2023 has not been disputed by any suggestion.
The defence that the claim petition may be collusive on account of delay of more than one year is unsustainable in as much as the petitioner has explained that he remained hospitalized for almost 7 days at PGI Rohtak and further continued to undergo treatment even thereafter. His medical report and discharge summary reveals fracture of hipbone on the right side, which may have rendered him incapable of even carrying out of his daily pursuits. In such circumstances, incapacity to file a police complaint promptly after the accident may not necessarily render the claim doubtful or collusive.
13. It has been held recently in New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Velu and anr. 2024 INSC 1116 that delay alone cannot invalidate a genuine claim under Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The court emphasized that while a late FIR may raise suspicion, it must be examined contextually alongside medical, investigative and documentary evident.
14. In the instant case also, though there is a delay in registration of FIR, this Tribunal cannot ignore the MLC of the victim which was prepared at PGI Rohtak on the same day of the accident and also indicated injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. This Tribunal cannot ignore that the petitioner suffered a hip bone fracture which would generally take atleast 6-8 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 9 of 27 ss : 10 : months to completely heal, for a person nearing age of 50. In these circumstances, this Tribunal holds no hesitation in observing that there was a serious lapse on the part of Haryana Police in not having promptly registered the FIR particularly where the MLC was prepared noting injury sustained in road side accident and admitted shown the pictures of the accidental vehicle. The duty was rather cast on the police to have inspected the cite/spot of accident, collected evidence and pictures of the accidental vehicles and properly investigate the case. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer due such lapse on the part of the police. As such, delay in the present case which is duly explained does not warrant its dismissal.
15. The fact that after investigation, even the police filed chargesheet against respondent no.1 u/s 279/338 of IPC which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1. 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.
16. It may further be noted that in Cholamandalam Insurance Company vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
17. Insurance company has pleaded deduction in compensation on the ground of contributory negligence. It has MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 10 of 27 ss : 11 : been pleaded that the petitioner was under influence of alcohol and therefore must have contributed to the accident. Surprisingly there is nothing in the MLC or discharge summary of the petitioner to show that he was inebriated. It appears that the insurance counsel got disarrayed by one of the prescription dated 11.04.2022 which infact advises the petitioner from consuming not more than 200mg alcohol. There is no other document to show that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol on the date of accident. The plea of contributory negligence is hence unsustainable.
18. 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.3 Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
19. In the instant case, no statutory defence has been raised by the insurance company. As such, insurance company/respondent no.3 is liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 (owner of the offending vehicle) by compensating the petitioner.
20. As regards the quantum of compensation, this court is governed by the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 11 of 27 ss : 12 : 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 of the law is 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.
21. 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.
MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 12 of 27 ss : 13 :
(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).
21.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 21.2. 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.
21.3. 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.
21.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
21.5. 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 13 of 27 ss : 14 : 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. 21.6. 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 14 of 27 ss : 15 : 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.
Pecuniary /Special Damages (i) Loss of earnings. Actual loss of earning:
22. As per the medical record, petitioner remained hospitalized for one week at PGI Hospital, Rohtak from 27.03.2022 to 01.04.2022. He was diagnosed with hip bone fracture on the right side, fracture B/L IPR (which refers to Inferior Pubic Ramus), MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 15 of 27 ss : 16 : fracture SPR (Superior Pubic Ramus) which would have taken atleast 6-8 months to completely heal, for a person nearing age of
50. In these circumstances, it is assumed that petitioner would have been incapacitated and completely bed-ridden for treatment and recovery for at least 8 months.
As regards income, petitioner has claimed to be working as a helper and earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- p.m. However, he has not placed on record any proof of his occupation/employment or salary nor any proof of educational qualification has been filed. In absence of any proof of the same, income of the petitioner has to be assessed as minimum wages of unskilled labour as per the minimum wages that prevailed in the state of Haryana (address reflected as Haryana as per Aadhar card) on the date of accident. Same were Rs.10,099/- per month.
His actual loss of income is taken as Rs.10,099X8(months)=Rs.80,792/-.
Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to compensation towards loss of income as Rs.80,792/-.
(i) Loss of future income/earnings:
23. In the present case, petitioner has relied upon disability certificate issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, noticing 35% in relation to both lower limbs and pelvis.
Considering that the petitioner was working as an unskilled labour which would require physical strength more than any ordinary person into a clerical or other job, the functional disability is taken as 35% i.e. same as opined by the Medical Board.
Since the date of birth of the petitioner as per his Aadhar MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 16 of 27 ss : 17 : card, is 10.08.1975, his age at the time of accident on 26.03.2022 would have been 46 years and 7 months, for purpose of calculating loss of future income, a multiplier of 13 (petitioner aged about 46 years), as per Sarla Verma judgment, would be applicable in the case and 25% would be added as future prospect as Pranay Sethi judgment. Hence, compensation towards loss of future income is assessed as Rs.10,099/-(monthly income)X12(annual computation) X13(multiplier)+25% of total income (as future prospect)=Rs.19,69,305/-. (Functional disability) 35% of this amount would be Rs.6,89,257/-. Hence so awarded.
(ii) Future Medical Expenses:
24. No proof of requirement of any future medical expenses has been filed or pleaded. No evidence has been led to show that the disability has rendered the petitioner bedridden or completely dependent on an attendant for rest of his lefe. As such, petitioner is not entitled to any future medical expenses.
(iii) Expenses relating to treatment:
25. Petitioner has not filed any medical bills. Considering that the only medical record filed pertains to a government hospital, it is assumed that there may not have been any substantial medical expenses.
Apart from expenditure on treatment, a sum of Rs.50,000/- under each head i.e. conveyance and special diet is granted to the petitioner. Rs.80,000/- is granted towards nursing attendant.
26. In this background, considering the material and evidence on record and the law on compensation in such like cases, as MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 17 of 27 ss : 18 : already discussed above, compensation in the present case is calculated as under for injured:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
no.
1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Nil.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.80,000/-
(v) Loss of income:Rs.10,099/-X8 month Rs.80,792/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Nil
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss/expenditure : Future Nil
Medical expenses.
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.2,50,000/-
shock :
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.2,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : NA
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and The petitioner nature of disability as permanent or has suffered temporary 35% in relation to both lower limbs.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Already granted expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity Already granted in relation to disability:
MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 18 of 27 ss : 19 :
(iv) Loss of future Income: Rs.6,89,257/-
Total Compensation Rs.15,00,049/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation Rs.15,00,049/-
Interest Simple interest
@7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing
of petition till
actual realization
of Award
amount/
compensation.
27. The total compensation payable to the petitioner/claimant would be Rs.15,00,049/- by insurance company with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till its actual realization.
28. In case, the interest of petitioner 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.
LIABILITY
29. As already decided, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by insurance company with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petitioin till actual realization.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 19 of 27 ss : 20 :
30. 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 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:
MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 20 of 27 ss : 21 : ............... 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 counsel as the case may be.
DISBURSEMENT
31. 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 21 of 27 ss : 22 : 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. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 22 of 27 ss : 23 : 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."
33. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
Apportionment:-
34. 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.
35. 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 23 of 27 ss : 24 : 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 amount is invested 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 24 of 27 ss : 25 : 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 of the 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 25 of 27 ss : 26 : 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..."
36. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, out of the total award amount i.e. Rs.15,00,049/-, Rs.3,00,049/- be released to him and remaining Rs.12,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDR of Rs.25,000/- 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.
37. 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 MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 26 of 27 ss : 27 : 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 26.03.2022 2 Name of injured Suresh Kumar 3 Age of the injured 46 years & 7 months 4 Occupation of the injured Unskilled labour of Haryana 5 Income of the injured as on Rs.10,099/-PM the date of accident 6 Nature injury Grievous/disability 7 Medical treatment taken by Pt.B.D. Sharma Post Graduate the injured:
Institute of Medical Science, Rohtak hospital
8 Period of Hospitalization 7 days.
9 Whether any permanent 35% in relation to both lower
disability? limbs.
38. List for compliance on 24.03.2026. Digitally
signed by
Charu Charu gupta
Announced in open Court gupta
Date:
2026.02.03
16:51:55
On 03rd February, 2026 +0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT No. 16/24 Suresh Kumar v. M/s Maruti Logistrics & ors. Page no. 27 of 27 ss