Delhi District Court
Anil vs Akash Deep on 17 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.136/2022
CNR No.-DLWT010016402023
Anil
S/o Sh. Neki Ram
R/o Jhuggi No. A-341,
Indra Colony Camp,
Punjabi Bagh, Tri Nagar,
North West Delhi, Delhi-110035.
....... Petitioner
Versus
1. Akash Deep (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ravinder Kumar
R/o H. No. 111/112, Veena Enclave, Nangloi, Delhi
2. Sachin (Owner)
S/o Sh. Chaman Lal
R/o A-122, Veena Enclave, Nangloi, Delhi
3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
rd
301, 3 Floor, Chandra Bhawan,
Nehru Place, Delhi-110019
Vehicle No. DL11K3843(scooty)
Policy No. D049156303 valid
w.e.f. 05.11.2021 to 04.11.2022
........ Respondents
Date of Institution of case : 21.02.2023 Date of final arguments : 06.11.2025 Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 17.11.2025 Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.1 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:04:45 +0530
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 26.08.2022
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 21.02.2023 First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 21.02.2023 to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 21.02.2023 from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 21.02.2023 from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 21.02.2023 Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 21.02.2023 and Form-VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 21.02.2023 Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on or deficiency on the part of 26.08.2022 and the DAR the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 21.02.2023 so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 21.02.2023 Designated Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes Officer of the Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No or deficiency on the part of the Designated Officer of the Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.2 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 17.11.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 21.02.2023 claimant(s) was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 06.11.2025 produced 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 Jhuggi No. A-341, Indra Address of the claimant(s). Colony Camp, Punjabi Bagh, Tri Nagar, North West Delhi, Delhi-110035
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is/are near his/her/their place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes was/were examined at the Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.3 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 10:04:58
+0530
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "M.V. Act") for grant of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by injured Anil in a road vehicular accident which took place on 26.08.2022 at about 21:30 hours in front of Metro Pillar No. 89, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER
2. 1 Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are as follows:-
2.2 That on 26.08.2022 at about 21:30 hours, the petitioner was hit by a scooty bearing registration no.
DL11K3843 (hereinafter "offending vehicle") and sustained grievous injuries, while he along with his relative Arun was crossing the road near Punjabi Bagh Metro Station, Rohtak Road. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 in rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn. After the accident, injured was shifted to Acharya Bikshu Hospital where concerned doctors prepared the MLC bearing No. 13003/2022. Thereafter, due to critical condition, the injured was shifted to Khetrapal Hospital at Bali Nagar, Ramesh Nagar. On his statement, FIR No. 560/2022 u/s 279/337/338 IPC PS Punjabi Bagh was registered against the respondent no.1. The petitioner spent Rs.2,50,000/- on his medical treatment. The petitioner was 40 years of age at the time of accident and was working as Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.4 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:00 +0530
Vegetable vendor and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. The incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. It is averred that the respondent no.01 being driver, respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.03 being the insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner(s).
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS 3.1 No WS/reply was filed on behalf of respondent no. 01 & 02. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal vide order dated 25.09.2023, closed the right of the respondent no.1 &2 to file WS/reply.
3.2 Respondent no.03 filed its written statement wherein it is admitted that the offending scooty bearing registration No. DL11K3843 was insured with it vide policy No.D049156303 valid from 05.11.2021 to 04.11.2026 in the name of Mr. Sachin. It is stated that there is a delay of 02 days in registration of FIR and there is no eye witness. When the IO visited the hospital to record statement of injured, the injured did not disclose the number of the alleged offending vehicle and changed his statement again and again. The number of offending vehicle was disclosed by the injured only on 05.09.2022 i.e. after a gross delay of 10 days. The alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case.
ISSUES
4. Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues vide order dated 25.09.2023:-
1. Whether the injured Anil Kumar suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 26.08.2022 at about 09:30 pm at in Front of Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.5 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 10:05:04
+0530
Metro Pillar No. 89, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. DL11K3843 by the respondent no.1, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, at what amount from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5.1 Petitioner examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of his petition. He relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1(OSR), copies of treatment records as Ex.PW1/2(colly), original medical bills as Ex.PW1/3(colly), DAR as Ex.PW1/4(colly) and medical bill summary as Ex.PW1/5 in his evidence. He was examined-in-chief, cross- examined and discharged.
5.2 Petitioner also examined Sh. Ashok Kumar, Receptionist from Navjeevan Hospital as PW-2 to prove the medical bills of injured. PW-2 has brought on record his authority letter provided by Medical Superintendent as Ex.PW2/A, attested copy of discharge sheet as Ex.PW2/1(OSR), one consolidated bill with three receipts/bills of the patient as Ex.PW2/2, the records of treatment as Ex.PW2/3(colly). He deposed that the the receipts of OPD of the patient belonging to their hospital are already available on record and the same were marked as Ex.PW2/4(colly). He further deposed that patient Anil was admitted in their hospital on 28.08.2022 and was discharged on 05.09.2022. He deposed that total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.6 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:11 +0530
been paid by the patient/family of the patient qua hospital expenses. He was cross-examined and discharged. 5.3 Petitioner also examined Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Executive Medical Record Department, Khetrapal Hospital, Bali Nagar, New Delhi as PW3 to prove the treatment records and bills. PW-3 has brought on record his authority letter issued by Dr. Smita Khetrapal, Medical Superintendent, Khetrapal Hospital as Ex.PW3/A and attested copy of referral summary, treatment records & one bill of Rs.26,401/- as Ex.PW3/B(colly). He was cross-examined and discharged.
5.4 Petitioner further examined eye witness of the accident Sh. Arun as PW-2. He deposed that on 26.08.2022, he was going to Haridawar along with Anil who is elder brother of his brother-in-law(Jija) as their relative had expired. At about 9:00 PM, they both were crossing the road at near Punjabi Bagh Metro Station. They were crossing the road from Power House side to the other side of the road. One scooty bearing registration No. DL11K3843 of red colour came in fast speed from Punjabi Bagh circle side and hit Anil. The scooty rider also fell down on the road. He caught hold of the scooty rider and asked for compensation for the injuries sustained by Anil. However, driver went away on the excuse of getting money from his house. He kept his Aadhar Card with him. He called the family members of Anil and the mother of Anil came at the spot of incident. He called the police from the mobile phone of the mother of Anil. They took Anil to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. After getting the injured admitted at hospital, he left for his home. He was cross- examined and discharged.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.7 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 10:05:15
+0530
5.5 Petitioner also examined Dr. Manoj Singh
Ghugtiyal, Senior Resident Orthopedics, Guru Gobind Singh Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi as PW-5. PW-5 has exhibited the disability assessment report of injured as Ex.PW5/A. PW-5 deposed that the patient has suffered 09% permanent locomotor disability in relation to right upper and right lower limb. He was cross-examined and discharged. 5.6 No evidence was led by respondents. Vide order dated 21.07.2025, RE of respondents was closed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
6. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has positively proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the expenses of the medical treatment of the injured and that the injured was working as vegetable vendor and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. It is submitted that there is also a disability assessment report on record, as per which, the injured has suffered 30% temporary disability on right lower limb & 09% permanent disability on right upper and lower limb. It is submitted that the delay in disclosing the number of offending vehicle stands explained as the injured and his relative were going on a funeral & they disclosed the details after the death ceremonies were over. Keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of petitioner. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of their contentions:-
1. "Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr." Civil Appeal no. 8981 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.8 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:19 +0530
No.10383 of 2007 decided on 18.10.2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
2. "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagat & ors." MAC. APP. 55/2012 & CM APPL.22764/2018, CM APPL.39127/2018 decided on 15.04.2024 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3
7. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that the vehicle in question has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner & respondents are in collusion with each other. He argued that the accident happened on 29.08.2022 but the number of offending vehicle was disclosed on 05.09.2022 and the same raises suspicion. He further argued that from the testimony of petitioner/PW-1, it is established that he was himself negligently crossing the road. It was further argued that the petitioner has failed to prove on record his income and loss of earning capacity due to disability. He submitted that the evidence of PW-2 cannot be relied upon as he has failed to explain the reasons as to how 03 receipts of different dates have consequent numbers. With these contentions, respondent no.03 has prayed for dismissal of the present claim petition. ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES Issue No.(1) Whether the injured Anil Kumar suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 26.08.2022 at about 09:30 pm at in Front of Metro Pillar No. 89, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No. DL11K3843 by the respondent no.1, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
8.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.9 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:22 +0530
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 8.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels for the parties and the judgments relied upon by them. 8.3 Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has argued that the incident has not happened with the vehicle in question and it was falsely implicated in the present matter. It was further argued that there is delay of 02 days in lodging of the FIR and even the registration number of the offending vehicle was disclosed later on and the same has remained unexplained. It is further contended that same supports their case of false implication of offending vehicle in this matter.
8.4 Per contra, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.10 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:24 +0530
petitioner that FIR bearing No. 560/2022 was registered on the basis of DD No. 110A dated 26.08.2022. It was further argued that the delay in disclosing the number of offending vehicle stands explained as the injured and his relative were going on a funeral of a relative & they disclosed the details after the death ceremonies were over.
8.5 In the present case, the FIR has been registered on 28.08.2022 clearly mentioning the details of the offending vehicle. As per GD no. 0110A dated 26.08.2022, a call was received regarding the occurrence of an accident at Power House Main Road, Pillar No. 89, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. It was mentioned that the accident has been caused by the driver of a scooty. Further, PW-4 Arun who is the eye witness of the incident has stated in his testimony that the accident was caused by a red colour scooty bearing registration no. DL11K3843 which was coming at a fast speed at Punjabi Bagh side. He has also stated that he had caught hold of the scooty rider and asked for the compensation for the injuries sustained by Anil. He deposed that the said driver escaped on the excuse of getting money from his house, however, he had kept his aadhar card with him. The said part of the testimony of PW-4 has remained unrebutted. Even as per the final report filed by the IO, the original Aadhar Card of the respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. 351596131416 was handed over to the IO by Sh. Arun. Even the seizure memo of said Aadhar Card has been filed along with the final report. As per which, the said aadhar card of driver of the offending vehicle was handed over by Sh. Arun to the IO. 8.6 Further, in reply to the notice issued under Section Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.11 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:27 +0530
133 MV Act, it has been stated by the owner/respondent no.2 that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was driven by his friend Akash.
8.7 Even in the charge-sheet filed by the IO after the detailed investigation,the respondent no.1 has been charge- sheeted for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 134/187 of MV Act. As per the seizure memo filed along with the DAR, the offending vehicle has been seized after production of the same by the owner/respondent no.2.
8.8 Thus, from the above, there remains no doubt that the offending vehicle i.e. red colour scooty bearing registration no. DL11K3843 was involved in the accident. Merely, because there is 02 days delay in lodging of the FIR or because the registration number of the offending vehicle has been only disclosed later on at the time of the recording of the statement by the police, does not in the absence of any other evidence on record lead to a presumption that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident but was implanted by the police. 8.9 Coming to the aspect of the rash and negligent driving by the respondent no.1, it is pertinent to mention that PW-1 and PW-4 have categorically stated in their testimony that the accident was caused by the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently. The PW-1 has stated in his evidence that there were three riders on the said offending vehicle. The said part of testimony of PW1 and PW-4 has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Despite lengthy cross-examination of the said witnesses, nothing favourable to the respondents came on record.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.12 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:29 +0530
8.10 Further, the charge sheet has been filed in the matter
wherein the respondent no. 1 has been charged with the offences U/s 279/338 IPC and Section 134/187 of Motor Vehicle Act and the same sufficiently proves the complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the offending vehicle negligently and rashly. The MLC, the site plan, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr. PC corroborate the case of the petitioner that the injured was hit by offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL11K3843 being driven by the respondent no.1 rashly and negligently.
8.11 Further, respondent no.1 was the best person to depose as to how and in what circumstances, the injured suffered the grievous injuries and whether or not the injured was hit by scooty being driven by him. However, the respondent no.1 did not enter the witness box and in the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred with the offending vehicle being driven by him rashly and negligently.
8.12 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities proved that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in road accident on 26.08.2022 at about 21:30 hours in front of Metro Pillar No. 89, Rohtak Road, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL11K3843 being driven by respondent no.1. 8.13 Now, this Tribunal shall ascertain whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner leading Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.13 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:32 +0530
to the accident as alleged by the respondent no.3. To prove the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner, the respondent no.3 has cross examined the petitioner. In the cross- examination, it is stated by the petitioner that he was crossing the road from power house side as shown in the site plan and the incident happened 2-3 steps prior to the divider. He has deposed that prior to crossing the road, he had seen towards his right side and had also seen the offending vehicle coming at very fast speed with 03 people riding on it and the same was at the distance from 20-25 feet from him. However, it is to be taken note of that the accident happened near the divider while the petitioner was crossing the road from the opposite side i.e. power house side shown at point B in the site plan which is part of DAR Ex.PW1/4(colly). It has been stated by PW-1 in his evidence that the road was a very wide road and said part of his testimony had remained unrebutted. Thus, even if the petitioner had seen the scooty coming from his right side, the same was not approaching him when he started crossing the road rather the offending vehicle was being driven on the side of the divider which was far away from the spot i.e. power house from where the petitioner started to cross the road and therefore, the petitioner could not have envisioned the possibility of a clash. 8.14 The driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no.1 who as per testimony of PW-1 was initially at a distance of 20-25 feet from the petitioner, must have also seen the petitioner crossing the road and approaching the divider, however, he could not/did not apply brakes and there is possibility that due to 03 people riding on the scooty, he could not control the offending Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.14 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:35 +0530
vehicle which caused the accident and the consequent injuries to the petitioner. It is also to be taken note of that it has been established in the testimony of PW-1 that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 very fast speed and 03 people were riding on the offending vehicle. The said part of the testimony of the witness PW-1 has remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Also, the respondent no.1 has been charged with offences u/s 279/338 IPC & u/s 134/187 of The MV Act. The respondent no.1 also failed to maintain a safe distance from the divider. Clearly, the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in utter disregard of traffic rules. 8.15 Understanding from the point of view of reasonable man, it can be said that he could have presumed that by the time, he reaches near the divider, the offending vehicle would have already crossed. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not negligent at all. It has come on record that he was crossing the road from a point where there was no zebra crossing at the point of incident. The petitioner should have been cautious while crossing the road and should have used a pedestrian crossing for the same.
8.16 In view of the circumstances and in the considered opinion of this Tribunal, 05% contributory negligence is attributed to the petitioner.
8.17 Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
9.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.15 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:37 +0530
is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road accident. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was held : -
"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) 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 Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.16 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:40 +0530
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 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 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%.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.17 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:42 +0530
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 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 v. 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 disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.18 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:46 +0530
(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."
9.2 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in routine 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. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence 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. In light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.19 of 34
Digitally signed
GUNJAN by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:48 +0530
which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:-
MEDICAL EXPENSES 9.3(i) The petitioner has stated in his evidence that he has suffered polytrauma-secondary to RTA-Head Injury(right temporl EDH with basifrontal & left Temporal Frontal contusions) with displaced Fracture Right mid shaft of Tibia & fibula with fracture Right Clavicle Middle Third with Right Eye Subconjuctival haemarrhage due to the accident and has incurred an expenses of Rs.2,50,000/- on medical treatment. The petitioner has filed medical bills as Ex.PW1/3(colly) on record which include the bills for treatment during hospitalization as well as medicine bills.
9.3(ii) To prove his medical expenses, petitioner has also examined Sh. Ashok Kumar Receiptionist from Navjeevan Hospital as PW-2. PW-2 has proved on record the attested copy of discharge sheet as Ex.PW2/1(OSR), one consolidated bill with three receipts/bills of the patient as Ex.PW2/2, the records of treatment as Ex.PW2/3(colly). PW-2 had also deposed that the reports of OPD care already available on record and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW2/4(colly). (Ex.PW2/4 were already a part of Ex.PW1/3). The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 that the bills are false and fabricated as the receipts Ex.PW2/2 are consecutively numbered, holds no weight.
Merely, because there is defect in numbering of the receipts, does not mean that the bills are fake. The originals are already on record as Ex.PW1/3(colly) and the same have been proved by PW-2 by production of hospital record. There is no reason why a hospital would prepare fake bills to assist the petitioner. No Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.20 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:51 +0530
evidence is led by respondent no.3 to prove its contention of fake bills. The evidence is to be tested only on scale of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is required to be taken. It is also to be kept in mind that PW-2 was summoned to produce a record and his cross-examination as to contents of documents is not be considered. Thus, the bills of Navjeevan Hospital are proved.
9.3(iii) Petitioner has also examined Sh. Yogesh Kumar, Executive Medical Record Department, Khetrapal Hospital as PW-3 who proved on record the attested copy of referral summary, treatment records and one bill of Rs.26,401/- as Ex.PW3/B(colly). The documents produced by PW3 remained unrebutted.
9.3(iv) No evidence has been led by respondents to disprove the claim of petitioner. There is no reason to disbelieve the above documents. Total amount of medical bills placed on record by the petitioner comes to Rs.2,37,781/-. 9.3(v) Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,37,781/- on account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded Rs.2,37,781/- on account of medical expenses.
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 9.4 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.21 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:54 +0530
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD 9.5(i) The petitioner has claimed that he was working as vegetable vendor and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. But no documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner to prove the income of the injured. As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner Ex.PW1/1(OSR), it appears that the petitioner was a resident of Delhi. Hence, the income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of chart of Minimum Wages of an Unskilled person in the State of NCT of Delhi. The minimum wages for an Unskilled person of State of NCT of Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 26.08.2022 were Rs.16,506/-.
9.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be considered as Rs.16,506/- per month on the date of accident.
9.5(iii) Considering the nature of injuries, the period of treatment and procedures undergone for treatment, this tribunal is of the opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work for about 12 months. Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of sum of Rs.1,98,072/- (Rs.16,506/- x 12) towards loss of income during treatment period. ASSESSMENT OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY 9.6(i) As per disability assessment report on record, the injured has suffered 09% permanent disability in relation to right upper and lower limb. The disability has been opined to be non- progressive and not likely to improve. Dr. Manoj Singh Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.22 of 34
Digitally signed
GUNJAN by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:05:56 +0530
Ghugtiyal, Senior Resident Orthopedics was examined as PW-5 on behalf of petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner has suffered 09% permanent locomotor disability in relation to right upper & right lower limb due to injuries sustained in the accident and he has exhibited the disability assessment report as Ex.PW5/A. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3. He deposed that due to the disability, he will not be able to lift heavy weights and will face difficulty in squatting and in sitting cross-legs. He further deposed that the petitioner will not face any difficulties in normal day to day activities, however, he may be not able to run properly.
9.6(ii) The petitioner is a vegetable vendor and with a disability in his upper and lower limbs which as per evidence on record would also impact his capacity to lift weight and he would face difficulty in squatting and sitting cross-legged, his earning capacity would definitely be affected. He might not be able to sell the vegetables for the same number of hours in a day as he would be able to before the accident. In the statement of the petitioner recorded as per MCTAP, it has been stated that he is not able to pull the rehri and earn the same amount as he used to before the accident. Thus, even the earning capacity would be affected on account of his incapacity to pull the cart and the movement of his cart being restricted to a small area or possibilly a fixed placed. The disability has been opined to be non- progressive and not likely to improve. As per disability assessment report, the petitioner has an implant and there is knee stiffness and stiffness of shoulder. Therefore, clearly, the functional disability of the petitioner qua his work of vegetable Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.23 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 10:06:00
+0530
vending has been impacted and for the purpose of assessment of compensation, the same is assessed at 30%.
9.6(iii) The injured was 39 years at the time of incident and had no permanent job, so the future prospects/benefits applicable to the present case would be 40%.
9.6(iv) The income of injured has already been assessed as as Rs.16,506/- and an addition of 40% needs to be made qua future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs to be taken as Rs.23,109/- (after rounding off) (Rs.16,506/- + Rs.6602.4/- which is 40% of Rs.16,506/-). 9.6(v) Thus, the total loss of earning capacity/loss of future earning would be Rs.12,47,886/-(Rs.23,109/-x 12 x 15 x 30/100). PAIN & SUFFERINGS 9.7(i) Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain & suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including victim's age, the unusual deprivation suffered by victim and effect thereof on his future life. As per the treatment records Ex.PW1/2, Ex.PW1/3, Ex.PW1/5, Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW2/2, Ex.PW2/3, Ex.PW2/4 and Ex.PW3/B(colly), the petitioner has suffered polytrauma(RTA) with Head Injury with fracture of right mid shaft of tibia/fibula with fracture Right Clavicle Middle Third with Right Eye Subconjuctival hemorrhage. The petitioner has remained under treatment uptil 13.12.2022. Further, the petitioner has undergone an implant surgery. As already discussed above, the petitioner has stiffness in shoulder and knee. Thus, clearly, the petitioner must have Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.24 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:02 +0530
suffered acute pain & suffering during the treatment as well as post treatment during the time of recovery. 9.7(ii) Further, the petitioner was merely 39 years of age and must be having a family dependent upon him. At this young age, he has suffered a 09% permanent disability in relation to right upper and lower limb. The disability has been opined to be non-progressive and not likely to improve. It is stated by PW-5 that due to the disability, the petitioner will not be able to lifting heavy weights and in squatting and further sitting cross-leg and and his functional disability is assessed as 30% in foregoing part of this award. With a permanent disability of 09% in relation to right upper and lower limbs, with no chance of improvement, the petitioner would be worsely affected in his old age. In his MCTAP statement recorded on 06.11.2025 and also in his evidence, he has stated that he is not able to pull his cart. Thus, his life has completely changed. Also, the petitioner had to take treatment at differently hospitals.
9.7(iii) In view of the same and considering the nature of the injury, the period of hospitalization and the future follow-up treatment and the suffering and the trauma undergone by him, the petitioner is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner. LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE 9.8(i) The petitioner has suffered 09% permanent disability in relation to right upper and lower limb which is opined to be non progressive and not likely to improve. The functional disability is assessed at 30% in this award. 9.8(ii) When a person suffers from a disability, less or Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.25 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:05 +0530
more, the same definitely impacts the mental psychology of the victim and causes mental trauma and feeling of loss. The person who suffers a disability definitely cannot lead a life in the same manner with same freedom. In this particular case where the victim has suffered permanent disability in relation to right upper and lower limb which is a very important part of the body and aids in walking, sitting, standing etc., and even as per PW-5, the petitioner would face difficulty in lifting heavy weights and in squatting and further sitting cross-leg. As per PW-5, the would not be able to run. The same will definitely impact the functioning of the body of the injured. Some signs may show up instantly and some are bound to show up in the later phase of life. The injured was only 39 years old at the time of accident and had a long life ahead to live. However, his quality of life has been deeply affected by the disability. In view of the same, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a notional sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the petitioner. LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE 9.9 In view of the discussions under the above head i.e. loss of amenities of life, this Tribunal is of the opinion that same would also affect the expectancy of life of the injured. In view of the same, a notional sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted to the petitioner for loss of expectancy of life.
SPECIAL DIET 9.10 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the judgment. Thus, considering the same and further considering that the petitioner must have required a long time to recover from Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.26 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:07 +0530
the injuries and must have required a special high protein rich diet for his recovery, this Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet. ATTENDANT CHARGES 9.11 It has already been discussed above, the petitioner had suffered Head Injury with displaced Fracture Right mid shaft of Tibia & fibula with fracture Right Clavicle Middle Third with Right Eye Subconjuctival haemarrhage. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner would have required attendant at home during his recovery period as well as during his visits to the hospitals. Considering the nature of injuries and the material available on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required attendant for at least 12 months. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges. CONVEYANCE CHARGES 9.12 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, the follow-up treatment taken on 05.09.2022, 07.09.2022, 08.09.2022,10.09.2022, 13.09.2022, 17.09.2022, 21.09.2022, 27.09.2022, 06.10.2022 and 13.12.2025, this Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance.
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE
PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.2,37,781/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of Nil
future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.1,98,072/-
Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.27 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:11 +0530
treatment period
4. Loss of earning capacity Rs.12,47,886/-
5. Pain and Suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs.3,00,000/-
7. Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,50,000/-
8. Special Diet Rs.1,00,000/-
9. Attendant charges Rs.1,00,000/-
10. Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.25,83,739/-
10. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.24,54,553/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three Only) [after deducting 05% on account of contributory negligence of the injured] [(Rs. 25,83,739 - Rs.1,29,186/- (05%)] against the respondents. LIABILITY
11. The respondent no.1 being the driver & respondent no.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly severally liable to pay the award amount to petitioner. However, in view of the foregoing discussions and since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3 at the time of accident, the respondent no.3 is held liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 in respect of above liability.
RELIEF:-
12. In view of the above discussion and findings on issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.24,54,553/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 21.02.2023 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.28 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:21 +0530
no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 13.1(i) Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 06.11.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs.6,54,553/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Three Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and remaining amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Only) along with interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.20,000/- each for a period of one month, two months and three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. 13.1(ii) The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 13.1(iii) All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.29 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19 10:06:29
+0530
individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The 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 claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). 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 the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
14. Respondent no.3 i.e. Go Digit General Insurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the compensation amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p. a. for the period of delay. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
15. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.30 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:33 +0530
specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
16. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 19.12.2025.
17. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
18. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
19. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer 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." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 17th of November, 2025 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/17.11.2025 Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.31 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:36 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 26.08.2022
2. Name of the injured : Anil
3. Age of the injured : 01.01.1983(DOB)
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.16,506/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 26.08.2022 to 13.12.2022
8. Period of Hospitalization : W.e.f. 28.08.2022 to 05.09.2022
9. Whether any permanent disability ? : Yes If yes, give details : 09% permanent in relation to right upper & righter lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.2,37,781/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.50,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.1,00,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity 30%
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.1,98,072/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.32 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:40 +0530
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.3,00,000/-
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NIL
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability 09%
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or Rs.1,50,000/-
loss of expectation of (loss of expectation of life) life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 30% earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.12,47,886/-
(Income x% Earning (Rs.23,109/-x 12 x 15 x
Capacity x Multiplier) 30/100)
14. TOTAL Rs.24,54,553/- (Rupees
COMPENSATION Twenty Four Lakhs Fifty
Four Thousand Five
Hundred and Fifty Three
Only) [after deducting
05% on account of
contributory negligence
of the injured] [(Rs.
25,83,739 - Rs.1,29,186/-
(05%)].
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.33 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:43 +0530
16. Interest amount up to Rs.6,05,046/-
the date of award w.e.f. 21.02.2023 to
17.11.2025 i.e. 2 years 8
months and 26 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.30,59,599/-
INCLUDING (Rs.24,54,553/- +
INTEREST Rs.6,05,046/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.6,54,553/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.18,00,000/- + interest
FDRs accrued
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 19.12.2025
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/17.11.2025
Anil vs. Akash Deep & Ors.
MACT No.136/2023 Page no.34 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.11.19
10:06:46 +0530