Delhi District Court
Bharat Ghai vs Raju Grover on 16 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr.
MACT No. 620/2022
Bharat Ghai (through his wife Ms. Harpreet Kaur)
S/o Sh. Shiv Ghai
R/o H. No. G- 65, 3rd Floor
Mahavir Enclave, Palam Village
South-West Delhi, Delhi-110045 ....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Raju Grover (since deceased) (Driver-cum-Owner)
S/o Sh. Dina Nath Grover
R/o CB-6A, DDA Flats, Hari Nagar
South-West, Delhi-110064
through his LRs
1a. Urmila Grover
1b. Megha Grover
Both R/o CB-6A, Ground Floor
Janta Flats, Hari Nagar
South-West Delhi, Delhi-110064
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer)
having its registered and head office at:
Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road
Yerawada, Pune-411 006
....Respondents
Date of institution : 10.06.2022
Date of concluding arguments : 25.02.2026
Date of decision : 16.03.2026
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 1 of 63
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereafter "DAR") was filed by the Investigating Officer, SI Jagdish, in FIR number 0104/2022 dated 11.02.2022 lodged at police station Chhawala under sections 279/337 of the IPC, regarding injuries suffered by the petitioner, Sh. Bharat Ghai, in a road accident. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter "M V Act"). 1.1 The petitioner is suffering from 100% disability and is represented in the present proceedings by his wife, Ms. Harpreet Kaur.
2. Respondent no. 1, Sh. Raju Grover, was the driver-cum-owner of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246. During the pendency of the present petition, he expired, whereupon his legal heirs/representatives, namely, Ms. Urmila Grover, his wife, and Ms. Megha Grover, his daughter, were impleaded in his place. 2.1 Respondent no. 2, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., is the insurer of the said vehicle.
DAR
3. As per the DAR, on 11.02.2022, the petitioner, along with his wife, minor children and mother, had reached BSF Camp, Chhawala, Najafgarh Road, in front of the Gurudwara, in their Maruti Ertiga bearing registration no. DL 9CAW 5903. The vehicle was parked on the roadside. After alighting from the car and assisting his mother in getting down, the petitioner opened the rear door on the driver's side to help his children who were seated inside. At that time, a Maruti Swift car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246, being MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 2 of 63 driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck the petitioner. Due to the impact, the petitioner's head hit and got stuck against the windshield of the Maruti Swift and he was dragged for a distance of approximately 20-30 feet. Subsequently, an Alto car approaching from behind overtook the offending vehicle and brought it to a halt by blocking its way.
3.1 As a result of the impact, the petitioner lost consciousness at the spot. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, wife of the petitioner, who was standing on the other side of the parked vehicle, rushed towards him. Sh. Manoj Kumar, the driver of the Alto car that had stopped the offending vehicle, assisted Ms. Harpreet Kaur in placing the unconscious petitioner on the rear seat of the offending vehicle. Upon inquiry, the driver of the offending vehicle disclosed his name as Raju Grover. Besides the driver, two women were also seated in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
3.2 Ms. Harpreet Kaur accompanied the petitioner in the offending vehicle to Triveni Hospital, Najafgarh. Upon examining the petitioner and observing his critical condition, the attending doctor advised that he be shifted immediately to an advanced medical centre. Thereafter, Sh. Manoj Kumar shifted the petitioner to Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, in his Alto car, where the petitioner's MLC was prepared. Subsequently, the petitioner was referred to and admitted at Venkateshwar Hospital, Delhi, for further treatment.
Defence of the Respondents
4. Notice of the DAR was served on the respondents.
4.1 Respondent no. 1 filed his written statement wherein, inter alia, he denied that any accident had taken place with his car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246. It is claimed that on 11.02.2022, while respondent no. 1 was MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 3 of 63 driving his car and was accompanied by his driver seated on the front passenger seat, he reached near Chhawala and noticed a crowd gathered around an injured person, whom he took to Triveni Hospital in his car on humanitarian grounds.
It is further claimed that at the relevant time respondent no. 1 was holding a learner's driving licence and was accompanied by Sh. Durga Shankar, who possessed a valid driving licence. It is further averred that the car in question was insured with respondent no. 2.
4.2 Respondent no. 2 filed its written statement wherein it has admitted that the offending car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 was insured with it. However, the respondent no. 2 has denied its liability towards the petitioner on the ground that the driver of the offending car did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident.
Inquiry
5. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 28.10.2022, by my learned predecessor:
(1) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 being driven and owned by Sh. Raju Grover respondent no. 1? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Thereafter, the claim petition was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
6. In order to prove the claim, the petitioner examined eleven witnesses.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 4 of 63
7. Ms. Harpreet Kaur, wife of the petitioner, examined herself as PW1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavits, which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. 7.1 In her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, PW1 deposed to the manner and circumstances of the accident in terms consistent with the version recorded in the DAR. She deposed that, as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner remained in a comatose condition since the date of the accident. She also detailed the period of hospitalisation and the medical treatment undergone by the petitioner. She further deposed about the expenses incurred towards the petitioner's medical treatment, physiotherapy, nursing care, and other related requirements. She stated the details of the petitioner's dependants.
7.2 The PW1 has relied on the following documents in support of her testimony:
Ex. PW1/1 is the set of copies of Aadhaar card and PAN card of the petitioner.
Ex. PW1/2 is the copy of driving license of the petitioner. Ex. PW1/3 is the set of copies of Aadhaar card and PAN card of PW1. Ex. PW1/4 is copy of Aadhaar card of Ms. Rhythm Ghai, daughter of the petitioner.
Ex. PW1/5 is copy of Aadhaar card of Master Rudransh Ghai, son of the petitioner.
Ex. PW1/6 is copy of Aadhaar card of Ms. Kamlesh Ghai, mother of the petitioner.
Ex. PW1/8 is the set of pharmacy & other bills of the petitioner. Ex. PW1/11 is the disability certificate of the petitioner. Ex. PW1/12 is the Counseling Form of the petitioner issued by Fortis Hospital, Gurugram.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 5 of 63 Ex. PW1/13 is the DAR.
Ex. PW1/14 are photographs of the petitioner. Ex. PW1/15 is the copy of Provisional Certificate of the petitioner issued by School of Open Learning, University of Delhi. Ex. PW1/16 is the set of pharmacy & other bills of the petitioner for the period from 27.04.2023 to 11.04.2024.
Ex. PW1/18 is a set of copies of two prescription slips dated 05.04.2024 pertaining to the petitioner, issued by Fortis Hospital, Gurugram. Ex. PW1/19 is the set of pharmacy & other bills of the petitioner for the period from 27.03.2024 to 21.10.2024.
Ex. PW1/20 is the set of pharmacy & other bills of the petitioner for the period from 12.08.2024 to 03.02.2025.
7.3 In her cross examination, PW1 deposed that she is graduate. She deposed that she had seen the offending vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle had taken her husband to Triveni Hospital. She deposed that there were some people sitting in the car at the time of accident along with the driver. She denied the suggestion that a valid driving licence holder was sitting on the front seat of the offending car. She clarified that in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the registration number of the offending vehicle had been wrongly typed as DL 9CAV 8642, whereas the correct number is DL 9CAV 8246.
In her further cross-examination, PW1 stated that she is an eye-witness to the accident as she and her family were accompanying the petitioner at the time of the accident. She deposed that the offending vehicle hit her husband due to which his head got stuck on the windshield and he fell onto the bonnet of the vehicle. The offending vehicle continued moving for about 20-30 feet before stopping, after which the petitioner/injured fell from the bonnet and became unconscious. She deposed that some public person made MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 6 of 63 a call at 100 number. She further deposed that the police did not reach the spot in her presence. She deposed that she first took her husband to Triveni Hospital and thereafter to Manipal Hospital. Due to non-availability of a bed, he was shifted to Venkateshwar Hospital, Dwarka. She deposed that she did not know who lodged the FIR. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police after some time, though she did not remember the exact date.
7.4 In view of the petitioner's medical condition and the continuing nature of his treatment, PW1 was permitted to lead additional evidence and to place on record further medical and other bills on 12.04.2024, 23.10.2024 and 07.02.2025. In her evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. PW1/B, PW1 deposed regarding the medical treatment undergone by the petitioner and the expenses incurred thereon.
8. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Dr. Pravendra Singh, Incharge Disability Cell, Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi, as PW2.
8.1 PW2 proved the Disability Certificate no. JSSHS/PwD/2022/660 dated 19.10.2022 of the petitioner issued by the Medical Board of Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital, Delhi, which is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/11. He also proved the medical record of the petitioner from the said hospital and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW2/1.
8.2 As per the said Disability Certificate (Ex. PW1/11), the petitioner is a case of severe hypoxic brain injury (post RTA head trauma) with bed bound status with bowel bladder involvement. It is a case of 100% permanent physical/mental impairment and his condition is not likely to improve. 8.3 As per the said medical record (Ex. PW2/1), the petitioner has a history of a road accident on 11.02.2022 with head injury and comatose state.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 7 of 63 8.4 PW2, in his cross examination, deposed that he was a member of the disability assessment board who has assessed the disability of patient/ petitioner in the present case. He deposed that the present condition of the patient is such that he is bedridden, shows no response to verbal commands, and has no control over bladder and bowel movements. Though he exhibits some eye movement, he does not respond to any command. His condition is not likely to improve.
9. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Ms. Asha, Medical Records Technician, HCMCT, Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, Sector-6, Delhi, as PW3. 9.1 PW3 produced the following documents:
Ex. PW3/1 is the discharge summary of the petitioner dated 11.02.2022 issued by Manipal Hospital, Dwarka.
Ex. PW3/2 is the copy of the MLC of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Manish Kumar, Record Keeper, Venkateshwar Hospital, Sector-18, Dwarka, New Delhi, as PW4.
10.1 PW4 produced the following documents:
Ex. PW4/A is his authorization letter.
Ex. PW4/B is the photocopy of his identity card. Ex. PW4/C is the certified copy of discharge summary of the petitioner for the period of hospitalisation from 12.02.2022 to 21.03.2022. Ex. PW4/E is the certified copy of discharge summary for the period of hospitalisation from 23.05.2022 to 07.06.2022.
11. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Surendra Meena, Senior Tax Assistant, Ward No. 1 (1), Faridabad, as PW5.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 8 of 63 PW5 produced the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of the petitioner for various assessment years along with the relevant record. The documents relied upon by him are as follows:
Ex. PW5/A is his Authority letter.
Ex. PW5/1 is the ITR of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Ex. PW5/2 is the ITR of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2019-20. Ex. PW5/3 is the ITR of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Ex. PW5/4 is the ITR of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 11.1 In his cross-examination, PW5 admitted that the source of income is not mentioned in the ITR. He deposed that his testimony was based on the documents maintained in the records of the Income Tax Department. He further deposed that he has no personal knowledge of the present case.
12. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Manorath Kumar, from Manocha Medicos, Triveni Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, as PW6.
12.1 PW6 relied on following documents:
Ex. PW6/1 is his authority letter.
Ex. PW6/2 is the set of pharmacy bills issued by Manocha Medicos. Ex. PW6/3 is copy of his Aadhaar card.
13. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Billing Manager, Venkateshwar Hospital, Sector-18A, Dwarka, New Delhi, as PW7.
PW7 deposed that the petitioner remained admitted in Venkateshwar Hospital for the period from 12.02.2022 to 21.03.2022 and the corresponding discharge summary has already been exhibited as Ex. PW4/C. He further deposed that the petitioner was again admitted in Venkateshwar Hospital for the period from 23.05.2022 to 07.06.2022 and the MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 9 of 63 corresponding discharge summary has already been exhibited as Ex. PW4/E. 13.1 PW7 relied on following documents:
Ex. PW7/1 is copy of his identity card.
Ex. PW7/2 is the hospitalisation bill dated 21.03.2022 of the petitioner for the period from 12.02.2022 to 21.03.2022.
Ex. PW7/3 is the hospitalisation bill dated 07.06.2022 of the petitioner for the period from 23.05.2022 to 07.06.2022.
13.2 In his cross-examination, PW7 deposed that the first bill amounts to ₹24,05,570/-, out of which a sum of ₹4,95,015/- was paid by Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. The remaining amount of the bills pertaining to Ex. PW7/2 and Ex. PW7/3 was paid by the party.
14. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Varun Bhatnagar, Assistant Manager, Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Ltd., as PW8.
In his cross-examination, the witness deposed that his insurance company had paid a sum of ₹5,00,000/- to Venkateshwar Hospital towards the medical treatment of the petitioner.
15. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Digbijay Kumar Parida, Billing Supervisor, Fortis Memorial Hospital, Gurugram, as PW9. PW9 brought the billing record of the petitioner from Fortis Memorial Hospital, Gurugram. He deposed that the petitioner remained admitted in Fortis Memorial Hospital on 20.03.2023, and thereafter for the period from 27.03.2023 to 21.04.2023, and again for the period from 28.04.2023 to 10.06.2023.
He clarified that the petitioner was admitted and discharged on 20.03.2023 itself. However, the discharge date is reflected as 21.03.2023 in the bill as the same was cleared on that day.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 10 of 63 15.1 PW9 relied on following documents:
Ex. PW9/1 is the copy of his identity card.
Ex. PW9/2 is the discharge summary of the petitioner for 20.03.2023. Ex. PW9/3 is the hospitalisation bill dated 21.03.2023 of the petitioner. Ex. PW9/4 is discharge summary of the petitioner for the period of hospitalisation from 27.03.2023 to 21.04.2023. Ex. PW9/5 is the hospitalisation bill dated 22.04.2023 of the petitioner for the period from 27.03.2023 to 21.04.2023.
Ex. PW9/6 is discharge summary of the petitioner for the period of hospitalisation from 28.04.2023 to 10.06.2023. Ex. PW9/7 is the hospitalisation bill dated 10.06.2023 of the petitioner for the period from 28.04.2023 to 10.06.2023.
15.2 In his cross-examination, PW9 deposed that out of the three hospitalisation bills, a sum of ₹5,00,000/- was paid by the insurance company in respect of Ex. PW9/5 in the year 2023. He further deposed that the remaining bills were paid by the petitioner.
16. The petitioner examined a summoned witness, Sh. Parul, Technician, Medical Records Department, Fortis Memorial Hospital, Gurugram, as PW10.
This witness proved the discharge summaries of the petitioner from Fortis Hospital, which are already exhibited as Ex.PW9/2, Ex.PW9/4 and Ex. PW9/6.
17. Lastly, the petitioner examined a summoned witness, Dr. Chinmay Arora, Associate Consultant, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, Gurugram, as PW11.
17.1 PW11 deposed that he is an associate doctor and has been treating the MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 11 of 63 petitioner along with Dr. Rana Patir at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram. He deposed that the petitioner is a follow-up case of a road traffic accident and was earlier treated at Venkateshwar Hospital. He stated that the petitioner has been receiving treatment at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram since January, 2023. He deposed that the petitioner is disabled and bed-ridden. He further deposed that the petitioner is suffering from severe traumatic brain injury due to accident and he will be dependent throughout his life. He will require full time trained nurse to take care of him.
17.2 PW11 relied upon the following documents:
Ex. PW11/1 is his authorization letter.
Ex. PW11/2 is his identity card.
Ex. PW11/3 is the medical opinion dated 10.04.2024 of Dr. Rana Patir regarding future expenses and treatment of the petitioner. 17.3 In his cross-examination, PW11 deposed that he cannot state the chances of complete recovery of the petitioner or the time that may be required for such recovery.
18. The petitioner's evidence was closed, and the matter was thereafter posted for the respondents evidence.
19. The LRs of respondent no. 1 did not examine any witness in support of their case.
20. Respondent no. 2 examined two witnesses.
21. Respondent no. 2 examined Ms. Mansi Aggarwal, its Senior Executive Legal as R2W1.
R2W1 filed her evidence by way of affidavit and the same is Ex. R2W1/A. MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 12 of 63 21.1 In her evidence by way of affidavit, R2W1 deposed that as per the report of the Investigating Officer, the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 was holding only a learner's licence at the time of the accident. She stated that under the provisions of the MV Act, a person holding a learner's licence is required to be accompanied by a person holding a valid permanent driving licence and must drive the vehicle under such supervision. However, in the present case, no such person was accompanying the driver, Sh. Raju Grover, at the time of the accident. She further deposed that the driver was driving the vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as well as the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.
21.2 R2W1 relied on following documents:
Ex. R2W1/1 is the Learner License Information, filed by the IO as part of DAR.
Ex. R2W1/2 is the copy of notice dated 08.07.2024 u/Order XII Rule 8 of CPC addressed to the respondent no. 1.
Ex. R2W1/3 is the postal receipt of the said notice. Ex. R2W1/5 is copy of insurance policy.
21.3 In her cross-examination, R2W1 deposed that she had no knowledge whether the driver-cum-owner, Mr. Raju Grover, had expired.
22. Respondent no. 2 examined Sh. Sumit Malik, Chartered Accountant, as R2W2.
R2W2 filed his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is Ex. R2W2/A.
22.1 In his evidence by way of affidavit, R2W2 deposed that he is a certified Chartered Accountant and has been appointed by respondent no. 2 to verify the ITRs of Sh. Raju Ghai (sic, Bharat Ghai) having PAN AYPPG9786L MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 13 of 63 and to comment about his source of income. He deposed that he has duly examined the relevant records and submitted his report. He further deposed that the petitioner had no income from salary or profession during the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, and that his entire income during the said period was derived under the head "Income from Other Sources."
22.2 R2W2 relied on following documents:
Ex. R2W2/B is the copy of his Certificate of Practice issued by the ICAI. Ex. R2W2/1 is his appointment letter issued by respondent no. 2. Ex. R2W2/2 is his Certification Report dated 12.11.2025 regarding ITRs of the petitioner.
22.3 In his cross-examination, R2W2 deposed that he is an advisor and consultant to respondent no.2 for specific cases and does not receive any regular monthly consultation fee. He stated that he is paid consultation fees only when his opinion is sought on tax-related matters or ITRs.
He admitted that there is a clerical mistake in his affidavit and clarified that "Bharat Ghai" should be read wherever "Raju Ghai" is mentioned. The ITRs he analysed pertained to Sh. Bharat Ghai and not Raju Ghai. He further deposed that the ITRs of Sh. Bharat Ghai for the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 were provided to him by Mr. Mukul, an official of the respondent no. 2, and that he did not meet Sh. Bharat Ghai personally. He admitted that the Certification Report incorrectly stated that the records were provided by the assessee, whereas they were provided by Mr. Mukul.
When questioned about the "other relevant details" relied upon in his Certification Report, he deposed that only the ITRs and PAN of Sh. Bharat Ghai were provided to him and no other details or records were provided. He clarified that "Other Income", as mentioned in the ITRs, cannot include MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 14 of 63 income from Salary, House Property, Capital Gains, or Business and Profession.
He deposed that he cannot state the actual work performed by the petitioner, as the same is not stated in the ITRs. However, based on the ITRs and the income declared, he can specify the types of work that were not undertaken by the petitioner.
23. I have heard learned senior counsel Sh. Sanjeev Ralli for the petitioner, learned counsel Ms. Shaina Parveen for the LRs of respondent no. 1 and learned counsel Ms. Sunanda Nimisha for respondent no. 2. I have also perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 11.02.2022 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 being driven and owned by Sh. Raju Grover respondent no. 1? OPP.
24. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. The petitioner has relied on the testimony of PW1 as well as the DAR.
25. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that the DAR has been filed in accordance with Rule 150A, which prescribes the procedure for investigation of road accidents, and Annexure XIII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Annexure XIII stipulates submission of the Driver's Form by the driver and the Owner's Form by the owner to the Investigating Officer. These forms form part of the DAR submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Claims Tribunal. It is submitted that in the present case, both forms bear the MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 15 of 63 signatures of respondent no. 1 and amount to an admission on his part that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident.
26. Learned counsel for the legal representatives of respondent no. 1 has opposed the claim on the following grounds:
Firstly, it is contended that the accident did not take place with the car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246, owned by respondent no. 1, and that he had merely taken the petitioner/injured to the hospital on humanitarian grounds.
Secondly, it is submitted that the eye witness, PW1, in her evidence by way of affidavit as well as in her statement under Section 161 CrPC, stated that the registration number of the offending vehicle was DL 9CAV 8642. It is further argued that PW1 is a graduate and the wife of the petitioner and, therefore, there is little likelihood of her having made a mistake in noting the registration number of the offending vehicle. Thirdly, it is contended that material witnesses were not examined by the petitioner. In particular, the second eye witness, Sh. Manoj Kumar, who was driving the Alto car, was not examined. The doctor who conducted the MLC of the petitioner was also not examined.
Fourthly, it is submitted that despite the accident having occurred in front of a Gurudwara, the Investigating Officer failed to produce any CCTV footage from the spot.
Fifthly, it is submitted that the mechanical inspection report of the Swift car bearing registration No. DL 9CAV 8246 does not establish its involvement in the specific accident in which the petitioner sustained injuries. Sixthly, it is contended that the photographs of the alleged offending vehicle were not taken at the spot of the accident or at the hospital, but at the police station, and therefore cannot be relied upon. It is also pointed out that even MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 16 of 63 as per the charge-sheet, the said vehicle was not recovered from the accident site but from Triveni Hospital.
27. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to briefly examine the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be established by a petitioner in a motor accident claim before the Claims Tribunal.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, (2009) 13 SCC 530, has held:
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018), 5 SCC 656, has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 17 of 63 on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
30. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Others, 2008 (101) DRJ 645, has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304-A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
31. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in a claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioner. The petitioner is merely to establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 18 of 63 holistic view of the matter.
32. As regards the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the signatures of respondent no. 1 on the Driver's Form and the Owner's Form forming part of the DAR amount to an admission that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, the same does not merit acceptance. The fact that respondent no. 1 signed the Driver's Form and the Owner's Form only indicates that he co-operated with the police during the course of investigation. It cannot, by itself, be construed as an admission on his part regarding involvement in the accident or liability arising therefrom.
33. The question of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is required to be examined on the basis of other evidence brought on record, excluding the Driver's Form and the Owner's Form.
33.1 The accident took place on 11.02.2022 and FIR no. 104 of 2022 was registered on the same day at Police Station Chhawala. There was, therefore, no delay in lodging the FIR. The FIR specifically records the offending vehicle as a Maruti Swift bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246. 33.2 On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the respondent no. 1 before the Learned MM-07, South-West, Dwarka under Sections 279/338 of the IPC showing the involvement of offending car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246.
33.3 The arrest memo dated 12.02.2022 shows that the respondent no. 1 was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident. 33.4 Respondent no. 1, in his reply to the notice dated 11.02.2022 under Section 133, MV Act issued to him, admitted that he was the owner of the offending Maruti Car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 and was MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 19 of 63 driving the same at the time of accident.
33.5 The Mechanical Inspection Reports dated 20.02.2022 of the car of the petitioner bearing registration no. DL 9CAW 5903 and the car/offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 clearly show that the vehicles suffered damage.
33.6 As per the seizure memo dated 11.02.2022, the offending car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 was seized in an accidental condition by the IO, SI Jagdish. The seizure memo also bears the signature of respondent no.
1. 33.7 The medical documents further give credence to the DAR. The MLC no.
1085 of the petitioner dated 11.02.2022 of Manipal Hospital, Dwarka, which is part of DAR, reflects that the petitioner suffered injuries in a road accident. The treatment record of the petitioner also reflects that he suffered injuries in a road accident.
34. As far as the second submission of learned counsel for the LRs of respondent no. 1 regarding the discrepancy in the registration number of the offending vehicle is concerned, the registration number as well as the make of the vehicle is specifically mentioned in the FIR itself. Moreover, PW1, in her cross-examination, clarified that the correct registration number of the offending vehicle is DL 9CAV 8246.
35. As regards the third submission pertaining to the non-examination of the second eye witness, Sh. Manoj Kumar, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has examined one eye witness. It is settled law that it is the quality of evidence, and not the number of witnesses, which is material. Insofar as the non-examination of the doctor who conducted the MLC is concerned, the same is not fatal, as the MLC forms part of the DAR. Moreover, the MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 20 of 63 petitioner proved the MLC by examining PW3, Ms. Asha from Manipal Hospital, who produced the relevant hospital record. Nothing prevented the LRs of respondent no. 1 from summoning and examining the said witnesses, if so advised.
36. With regard to the fourth submission concerning non-production of CCTV footage, there is nothing on record to show that any CCTV camera covering the spot of the accident was installed or functional at the relevant time.
37. As regards the fifth submission that the mechanical inspection report of the Swift car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 does not establish its involvement in the accident in question, the LRs of respondent no. 1 have not offered any explanation for the damage noted on the vehicle. Even if it is assumed that the vehicle was involved in some other accident, no document such as an FIR or DD entry relating to any other accident has been produced.
38. Insofar as the sixth submission regarding the photographs of the offending vehicle is concerned, the same is without merit. The petitioner was shifted from the spot of the accident to Triveni Hospital in the offending vehicle itself, and the police reached the hospital rather than the accident site. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the photographs were taken at the police station does not render them unreliable.
39. Coming to the first submission that the accident did not involve the Swift car bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246 and that respondent no. 1 had merely transported the petitioner/injured to the hospital on humanitarian grounds, there is sufficient evidence on record to negate the said plea. The MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 21 of 63 LRs of respondent no. 1 have neither disputed the reply furnished by respondent no. 1 to the notice under Section 133 of the MV Act nor explained the damage to the offending vehicle. The testimony of PW1 is largely consistent. Further, no complaint alleging false implication was made by either respondent no. 1 or his LRs before any higher police authority.
40. In view of the above discussion and taking a holistic view, it stands proved on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CAV 8246, being driven and owned by respondent no. 1, thereby causing injuries to the petitioner. Issue No. 1 is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
41. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. In view of finding on Issue No. 1, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road accident.
41.1 PW1, in her evidence by way of affidavit PW1/A, had claimed compensation of ₹2 crores along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. However, in his written submissions, the petitioner has sought compensation far in excess of the amount claimed in the affidavit.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles relating to
compensation in injury cases and held:
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 22 of 63
"6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the principles regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:
"19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
Functional disability of the Petitioner MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 23 of 63
43. In view of the depositions of PW2, Dr. Pravendra Singh, and PW11, Dr. Chinmay Arora, the Disability Certificate no. JSSHS/PwD/2022/660 (Ex. PW1/11) and the medical record of the petitioner (Ex. PW2/1), this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has suffered 100% functional disability, and his condition is not likely to improve. Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured:
44. There is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 with regard to the income of the petitioner at the time of the accident.
45. PW1, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, in her evidence by way of affidavit, deposed that the petitioner was engaged in event management and was earning ₹7 lakhs per annum prior to the accident.
In order to establish his income, the petitioner examined PW5, Sh. Surender Meena, Senior Tax Assistant from the Income Tax Department, who produced on record the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of the petitioner for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021- 2022. It is noted that the accident occurred on 11.02.2022, but the petitioner did not file any ITR for the AY 2022-2023.
The details of the said ITRs are summarised in the following table:
ITRs of Sh. Bharat Ghai Assessment Year 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 ITR Form Type ITR 1 Sahaj ITR 1 ITR 1 Sahaj ITR 1 Sahaj ITR not filed Sahaj for income Gross Salary 0 0 earned for the ₹1,41,131/- ₹7,70,068/- period from Income ₹1,41,131/- ₹7,30,068/- 0 0 01.04.2021 to chargeable under 11.02.2022 the Head 'Salaries' Income 0 0 0 0 chargeable under MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 24 of 63 the Head 'House Property' Income from ₹1,12,550/- ₹5,985/- ₹5,03,623/- ₹2,48,153/- Other Sources Gross Total ₹2,53,681/- ₹7,36,053/- ₹5,03,623/- ₹2,48,153/- Income Total Deductions ₹4,550/- ₹1,25,555/- ₹6,129/- ₹6,358/- Total Income ₹2,49,130/- ₹6,10,500/- ₹4,97,490/- ₹2,41,800/-
Tax Paid 0 ₹40,984/- 0 0
Date of Filing 22.08.2018 27.12.2019 04.01.2021 30.03.2022
Submissions of the Petitioner regarding his income
46. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the income of the petitioner as on the date of the accident ought to be assessed by taking the average of his income for the AYs 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, which comes to ₹51,653/- per month.
46.1 It was further submitted that the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was severely affected due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact which also stands recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as the said period was directed to be excluded for the purposes of limitation. It was contended that the said period was exceptionally harsh, during which normal working and business activities were adversely affected. Therefore, the income pertaining to the COVID-affected years cannot form the basis for determining the loss of income and deserves to be ignored.
46.2 It was further submitted that the petitioner's Income Tax Returns had been duly processed and accepted by the Income Tax Department, and assessment orders under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been passed. It was contended that once the income has been determined and the returns have been processed by the Income Tax Department, the correctness thereof cannot be questioned in these proceedings. It was MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 25 of 63 contended that the testimony of R2W2, Sh. Sumit Malik, cannot be accorded greater weight than the assessment orders passed by the Income Tax Department.
46.3 It was also submitted that event management work can be undertaken and executed by an individual by accepting assignments from different clients and receiving payments in his personal account, without the necessity of establishing a separate event management firm or company. 46.4 It was further submitted that the petitioner could not file his ITR for the AY 2022-2023 on account of the accident dated 11.02.2022, as a result of which he became incapacitated.
46.5 Reliance was placed on paragraph 15 of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nidhi Bhargava and Others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others 2025 SCC OnLine SC 872 wherein it was held:
"15. The High Court interfered and reduced the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal only on the ground that Return for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 had to be excluded from consideration. It is not in dispute that the deceased was a businessman. The relevance of the Income Tax Return stems, in the context of the Act, for the period which it relates to i.e., the Financial Year concerned, and not on the date on which it is filed with the Income Tax Department. When faced with Returns for different Assessment Years, it would be upto the Tribunal concerned to adopt either the average income therefrom or choose an Assessment Year to rely upon. There is good reason to leave judicial discretion on the Tribunal to adopt one of the afore- noted two courses of action, bearing in nature the social purpose and object behind the Act, which is a beneficial legislation. It is quite unfortunate that the High Court in the present case has dealt with the matter in such a casual and superficial way where the rightful claim of the appellants under a welfare legislation has been drastically reduced without any cogent reason on a very tenuous ground, which we find to be totally unjustified..."
Submissions of Respondent No. 2 regarding Petitioner's income
47. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has relied upon the testimony of R2W2, Sh. Sumit Malik, to contend that the petitioner had no income under the heads Salaries, Income from House Property or Profits and Gains of Business or Profession for the AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22. It is further MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 26 of 63 submitted that, as per his ITRs for the said years, the petitioner's disclosed income was only under the head Income from Other Sources. 47.1 It is further submitted that the absence of income under the heads "Salary"
and "Business and Profession" for the AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 indicates that the petitioner was either unemployed or not carrying on any event management activities.
47.2 Reliance was placed on paragraph 9 of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Maheshwari Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1918, to contend that no addition towards future prospects ought to be made. The said paragraph reads as under:
"9. However, since just compensation is granted, we do not find any reason to award compensation for loss of future prospectus. It is clear that the claimant though has suffered a disability, which has been determined to be 50%, there is no difficulty in continuing with the business and the claimant has also been fitted with a prosthetic leg which ensures his mobility and continuance of the business. The 40% enhancement in the annual income for taking into account the future prospects is found to be improper, especially in the context of 50% disability having been reckoned for the purpose of loss of earning capacity and the claimant enabled to continue his business."
Discussion and Findings on Income of the Petitioner
48. Section 14 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 classifies all income, for the purposes of charge of income tax and computation of total income, into the following heads:
i. Salaries ii. Income from House Property iii. Profits and Gains of Business or Profession iv. Capital Gains v. Income from Other Sources.
48.1 Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with Income from Other Sources. As per the said section, the incomes that do not fall under any other MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 27 of 63 head, that is, Salaries, Income from House Property, Profits and Gains of Business or Profession, or Capital Gains are categorized under the head "Income from Other Sources".
49. The ITRs filed by the petitioner are in Form ITR-1 (Sahaj). The Sahaj Form for the AY 2018-19 bears the following description:
"For individuals being a resident (other than not ordinarily resident) having income from Salaries, one house property, and other sources (Interest, etc.), and having total income up to Rs. 50 lakh (refer instructions for eligibility)."
49.1 The "Instructions for filing ITR-1 Sahaj", for the assessment year 2018-19, are available on the website of the Income Tax Department (https://www.incometax.gov.in). The relevant portion of these instructions is extracted below:
"2. Who can use this Return Form:
This Return Form is to be used by an individual who is a resident other than not ordinarily resident and whose total income for the assessment year 2018-19 includes:-
(a) Income from Salary/ Pension; or
(b) Income from One House Property (excluding cases where there is brought forward loss or loss to be carried forward from previous year); or
(c) Income from Other Sources (excluding winning from lottery and income from Race Horses, Income taxable under section 115BBDA or Income of the nature referred to in section 115BBE).
NOTE:
Further, in a case where the income of another person like spouse, minor child, etc. is to be clubbed with the income of the assessee, this Return Form can be used only if the income being clubbed falls into the above income categories.
3. Who cannot use this Return Form:
This Return Form should not be used by an individual whose total income for the assessment year 2018-19 exceeds Rs.50 lakh or includes,-
(a)Income from more than one house property and where there is brought forward loss or loss to be carried forward from previous year; or
(b) Income from winnings from lottery or income from Race horses; or
(c) Income taxable under section 115BBDA; or
(d)Income of the nature referred to in section 115BBE; or
(e) Income under the head "Capital Gains" e.g., short-term capital gains or long-term capital gains from sale of house, plot, shares etc.; or MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 28 of 63
(f)Income to be apportioned in accordance with provisions of Section 5A.
(g)Agricultural income in excess of ₹5,000; or
(h)Income from Business or Profession; or
(i)Loss under the head 'Income from other sources'; or
(j)Person claiming relief under section 90 and/or 91; or
(k)Any resident having any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India or signing authority in any account located outside India; or
(l)Any resident having income from any source outside India; or
(m) In case the income is to be apportioned in accordance with provisions of section 5A."
Similar descriptions and instructions are available on the website of the Income Tax Department for AYs 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. 49.2 A plain reading of the aforesaid instructions makes it clear that Form ITR-1 (Sahaj) cannot be used by an individual having income under the head "Capital Gains" or income from "Business or Profession".
50. The petitioner is justified in contending that, since assessment orders under Section 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were passed by the Income Tax Department in respect of his ITRs, the correctness of those returns cannot ordinarily be questioned. However, the said contention does not advance his case.
50.1 A perusal of the petitioner's ITRs for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 reveals that no income has been disclosed under the head "Salary". Therefore, on the basis of the petitioner's own returns, it must be concluded that he had no income from salary during the said period.
50.2 Further, the returns for the aforesaid assessment years were filed in Form ITR-1 (Sahaj). As already noted, the said form is not applicable to individuals having income under the head "Business or Profession". The use of Form ITR-1, therefore, leads to the inference that the petitioner did not have any income from business or profession during AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 29 of 63
51. As regards the submission that the petitioner could not file his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2022-23 on account of the incapacity resulting from the accident dated 11.02.2022, the same cannot be accepted. 51.1 Firstly, the incapacity did not absolve the petitioner of his statutory obligation to file a return of income and discharge his tax liability, if any, for the relevant period. The petitioner, or his legal representatives, remained liable to file the return and pay taxes on any income earned by the petitioner during the period from 01.04.2021 to 11.02.2022. 51.2 Secondly, and more significantly, a perusal of the return for AY 2021-22 shows that it was filed on 30.03.2022, that is, after the date of the accident when the petitioner had already been rendered incapacitated. No satisfactory explanation has been furnished as to why the return for AY 2022-23 could not similarly have been filed.
51.3 Non-filing of ITR for AY 2022-23 leads to the inference that the petitioner did not have any taxable income during the said assessment year.
52. What is material for the purpose of determining loss of income is the income of the petitioner as on the date of the accident, and not merely the income earned in the preceding years.
52.1 The petitioner is correct in contending that an individual may carry on event management work without establishing a separate firm or company. However, in the present case, the petitioner has neither examined any client/employer nor placed on record any documentary evidence to establish that he was engaged in any work or income-earning activity during the period from 01.04.2021 to 11.02.2022.
52.2 Significantly, the deposition of PW1 is completely silent with regard to any specific event organised by the petitioner or any particular assignment MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 30 of 63 undertaken by him on behalf of any client during the relevant period. No client, employer or associate from the event management industry has been examined to substantiate the assertion that the petitioner was actively engaged in event management work or was earning ₹7 lakhs per annum as claimed.
53. It is significant to note that PW1, in her evidence by way of affidavit, has not even asserted that the petitioner's income was adversely affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
53.1 Income under the heads "Salaries" or "Profits and gains of business or profession" generally requires regular, continuous, and hands-on involvement of the earner, and such income could plausibly have been affected by the disruptions caused by Covid-19. However, no such presumption can be drawn in respect of Income from Other Sources.
54. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence demonstrating active engagement in income-generating work on the date of the accident. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the settled proposition of law laid down in Nidhi Bhargava (supra), the income of the petitioner is taken, in accordance with the last ITR filed by him for AY 2021-22, as ₹2,48,153/- per annum. The said ITR, filed on 30.03.2022, that is, after the accident, reflects the petitioner's income most proximate to the date of the accident and is, therefore, an appropriate benchmark for determining his annual income.
55. As per the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier has to be taken on the basis of the MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 31 of 63 age of the petitioner and for the age group 35-40 years, a multiplier of 15 is applicable.
56. As far as the reliance placed by respondent no. 2 on Anoop Maheshwari (supra) with regard to future prospects is concerned, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from those prevailing in the said decision. 56.1 In Anoop Maheshwari (supra), the claimant was engaged in business, had suffered 50% functional disability, and though fitted with a prosthetic leg, was able to continue his business without any substantial impediment. It was in those peculiar facts and circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to grant addition towards future prospects. 56.2 In the present case, however, the petitioner has suffered 100% functional disability and has been rendered wholly incapable of pursuing any gainful employment. Consequently, the ratio of Anoop Maheshwari (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and cannot be applied for assessing the loss of future earning capacity of the petitioner.
56.3 In the present case, the petitioner is entitled to addition towards future prospects at the rate of 40%, in accordance with his age and the principles governing the grant of such addition as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
57. Loss of Future Earnings/ Income is computed as follows:
Annual Income at the time of accident = ₹2,48,153/- Add: Future Prospects @ 40% of the established income= ₹99,261.2 Annual Income including Future Prospects= ₹3,47,414.2 Multiplier applicable with reference to age = 15 Loss of Future Earnings/ Income = ₹3,47,414.2 x15 = ₹52,11,213/- Accordingly, the loss of future earnings/income is assessed at ₹52,11,213/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakh Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Thirteen only).
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 32 of 63 Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure, that is, medical & other expenditure already incurred by the petitioner
58. In view of the petitioner's condition and the continuing nature of his treatment, PW1 was last examined on 07.02.2025, when bills up to that date were produced.
58.1 The expenses incurred on the petitioner after 07.02.2025 have been considered under the head of future expenses.
59. The bills placed on record by the petitioner are voluminous and relate to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and other miscellaneous expenditures. For the sake of convenience, these have been discussed under various sub-headings/categories.
Hospitalisation Bills
60. The petitioner remained hospitalised at Venkateshwar Hospital, Delhi from 12.02.2022 to 21.03.2022 and again from 23.05.2022 to 07.06.2022. He was also hospitalised at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram on 20.03.2023, thereafter from 27.03.2023 to 21.04.2023, and again from 28.04.2023 to 10.06.2023. 60.1 The petitioner examined PW4, Sh. Manish Kumar, to prove the bills of Venkateshwar Hospital, Delhi. The petitioner further examined PW9, Sh. Digbijay Kumar Parida, to prove the bills of Fortis Hospital, Gurugram. 60.2 It is not in dispute that the petitioner has received an amount of ₹9,95,015/-
under his medical insurance policy, which is borne out from the testimonies of PW7 and PW9 in their cross-examination.
60.3 The hospitalisation bills are summarised as under:
Sl. Exhibit Name of the Date of bill Bill Amount Amount Amount paid No. No. Hospital paid by by the MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 33 of 63 medical petitioner insurer
1. PW7/2 Venkateshwar 21.03.2022 ₹24,05,570/- ₹4,95,015/- ₹19,10,555/-
Hospital
2. PW7/3 Venkateshwar 07.06.2022 ₹7,98,862/- Nil ₹7,98,862/-
Hospital
3. PW9/3 Fortis Hospital 21.03.2023 ₹19,299/- Nil ₹19,299/-
4. PW9/5 Fortis Hospital 22.04.2023 ₹10,20,264/- ₹5,00,000/- ₹5,20,264/-
5. PW9/7 Fortis Hospital 10.06.2023 ₹22,20,815/- Nil ₹22,20,815/-
Total ₹64,64,810/- ₹9,95,015/- ₹54,69,795/-
In view of the above, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of ₹54,69,795/-
towards hospitalisation expenses.
Admissibility of Photocopies of Bills/ Unexhibited Bills
61. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the originals of certain bills could not be traced owing to the difficult circumstances faced by the petitioner's family. He further submitted that since the authenticity of the photocopies has not been disputed by the respondents, the expenses reflected therein ought to be awarded.
62. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the amounts reflected in the photocopies cannot be awarded as the petitioner had adequate opportunity to produce the original bills but failed to do so. Further, unexhibited bills cannot be considered, as the respondents were deprived of the opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses in respect thereof. Accordingly, only those expenses supported by original and duly proved bills can be allowed. OPD/Consultancy Fees
63. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed a sum of ₹50,400/-
towards OPD/consultancy charges. Out of the said amount, ₹48,600/- is MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 34 of 63 supported by original bills, whereas ₹1,600/- is supported only by photocopies. These bills pertain to Homeopathic as well as Allopathic consultations.
Homoeopathic Consultation
64. The petitioner has placed on record fourteen (14) handwritten slips purportedly issued by Dr. Shaleen Khurana, Homoeopathic Consultant, for the period from 20.02.2022 to 26.02.2023, amounting in aggregate to ₹35,000/-. As per these slips, ₹14,000/- has been charged towards consultation fees and ₹21,000/- towards medicines. These slips form part of Ex. PW1/8.
64.1 A disclaimer stating that the slips are "not for medico-legal purpose" is printed on each of the said fourteen slips. Further, Dr. Shaleen Khurana was not examined to prove these documents. In view of the said disclaimer and the non-examination of the doctor, the slips remain unproved. Accordingly, no amount is awarded towards the homoeopathic consultation charges.
Allopathic Consultation
65. The petitioner has produced ten original bills relating to allopathic consultation.
65.1 Seven of these original bills were issued by Venkateshwar Hospital, dated from 29.03.2022 to 05.01.2023, amounting to ₹8,400/-. 65.2 Three original bills were issued by Fortis Hospital (one dated 05.01.2023 and two dated 05.04.2024), amounting to ₹5,200/-. 65.3 These bills are original and pertain to established hospitals. Accordingly, they can be relied upon for the purpose of awarding OPD/consultation charges.
65.4 For the reasons already recorded, the amount of ₹1,600/- supported only by photocopies cannot be allowed.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 35 of 63 Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to ₹13,600/- (8,400 + 5,200 =13,600) towards OPD/consultation charges under this head.
Blood Tests/ Other Laboratory Tests
66. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed ₹30,700/- towards blood and laboratory investigations. He has further submitted that of this amount, ₹29,065/- is supported by original bills, while ₹1,635/- is supported only by photocopies.
67. However, two receipts, that is, Receipt No. VLC164B0 dated 02.04.2022 for ₹600/- and Receipt No. VL7D8395 dated 08.04.2022 for ₹1,230/-, both issued by Thyrocare, though claimed to be original, are photocopies. An amount of ₹1,830/- (600+1230=1830) is therefore liable to be excluded. 67.1 After deducting ₹1,830/- , the awardable amount works out to ₹27,235/-.
The petitioner is accordingly held entitled to ₹27,235/- under this head.
Pharmacy Bills
68. The petitioner has claimed a total sum of ₹19,76,382/- towards pharmacy expenses up to 07.02.2025, as detailed below:
(i) ₹15,26,656/- towards bills from Manocha Medicos,
(ii) ₹1,40,082/- towards bills from Tata 1MG, and
(iii) ₹3,09,644/- towards bills from other pharmacies.
Accordingly, the petitioner has sought a total sum of ₹19,76,382/- towards pharmacy bills.
69. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and that strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied. It is contended that the entire pharmacy claim MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 36 of 63 ought to be allowed. Reliance has been placed upon the testimony of PW6, Sh. Manorath Kumar, to prove the bills of Manocha Medicos and on the medical opinion dated 10.04.2024 (Ex. PW11/3) of Dr. Rana Patir.
70. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and that strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied. However, the concept of just compensation inherently requires that the award be founded on credible material. The burden to establish actual medical expenditure lies upon the petitioner. A large monetary claim of more than ₹19 lakhs, solely towards pharmacy expenses, necessarily demands strict scrutiny and credible documentary substantiation.
71. In the present case, the fundamental infirmity in the claim towards pharmacy expenses is the absence of corresponding medical prescriptions. Though voluminous bills have been placed on record, the petitioner has failed to produce the corresponding prescriptions linking the medicines allegedly purchased to medical advice.
72. PW6, Sh. Manorath Kumar, examined to prove the bills of Manocha Medicos deposed that he has been working as a salesman with Manocha Medicos for the past three years. He admitted, in cross-examination, that the bills do not mention the prescriptions on the basis of which medicines were sold. He further admitted that no medical prescriptions have been filed on record. He also conceded that he had not brought the original record books pertaining to the exhibited bills. In his further cross-examination, he admitted that invoice copies of some of the bills were not traceable, stating MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 37 of 63 that it was difficult to preserve all filled invoice books as they were destroyed by termites.
These admissions significantly erode the evidentiary value of the bills from Manocha Medicos.
73. Though the petitioner examined two doctors, PW2 and PW11, their testimonies do not substantiate the pharmacy claims. 73.1 PW2, Dr. Pravendra Singh, admitted in his cross-examination that he was not the treating doctor. Even otherwise, his testimony is silent on the aspect that the petitioner would require long term medication. 73.2 PW11, Dr. Chinmay Arora, who stated that he was an associate of the treating doctor, Dr. Rana Patir, proved the medical opinion dated 10.04.2024 (Ex. PW11/3). However, the said opinion does not enumerate or specify any particular medicines allegedly prescribed to the petitioner. Dr. Chinmay Arora did not produce any prescription to correlate the medicines reflected in the pharmacy bills with the medical advice of Dr. Rana Patir. In the absence of such linkage, the testimony of PW11 does not substantiate the pharmacy expenditure claimed.
74. The last discharge summary of the petitioner dated 10.06.2023 (Ex. PW9/6) prescribes medicines only for limited durations ranging from one week to ten days.
75. No original allopathic prescription has been produced to justify the pharmacy expenditure. Photocopies of two allopathic prescriptions, both dated 05.04.2024, purportedly issued by Dr. Saurabh Bansal and Dr. Rana Patir form part of Ex. PW1/18. However, the originals thereof have not been produced.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 38 of 63
76. Significantly, no substantial consultation charges with allopathic doctors have been claimed which further weakens the inference of continuous medical supervision requiring such extensive medication.
77. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is unable to accept the pharmacy bills in the sum of ₹19,76,382/- as claimed. The same remains uncorroborated by prescriptions and medical advice. To allow the entire amount in such circumstances would transgress the principle that compensation must be just and based on cogent material. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner, having suffered serious injuries, would necessarily have incurred expenditure on medicines and treatment. Taking a balanced and pragmatic view of the matter, the petitioner is awarded a lump sum amount of ₹3,00,000/- towards pharmacy expenses.
Ayurveda Bills
78. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed an amount of ₹2,57,863/- towards Ayurveda bills. It is further claimed that bills amounting to ₹1,67,441/- are original bills, whereas bills amounting to ₹90,422/- are photocopies.
79. The petitioner neither examined any Ayurvedic doctor nor produced any original Ayurvedic prescription.
79.1Photocopies of two Ayurvedic prescriptions dated 05.07.2022 and 06.08.2022, purportedly issued by Dr. J.R. Raju, Ayurvedic Physician, form part of Ex. PW1/8, but the originals have not been produced. 79.2. Eighteen (18) bills amounting to ₹1,38,875/-, though claimed as originals, are merely handwritten bill-book leaves, bereft of the name and credentials MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 39 of 63 of the issuer or treating doctor and without any stamp, registration number, or GST details. These documents do not inspire confidence and cannot be safely relied upon. These cannot be accepted as proof of expenditure.
80. In view of the foregoing discussion, no amount can be granted to the petitioner under this head.
Bills without stamp or signature
81. Admittedly, bills amounting to ₹13,515/- do not bear any stamp or signature. No payment can be made against these bills.
82. The amounts awarded towards Hospitalisation Bills (₹54,69,795/-), OPD/Consultancy Fees (₹13,600/-), Blood Tests/Other Laboratory Tests (₹27,235/-) and Pharmacy Bills (₹3,00,000/-) aggregate to ₹58,10,630/-. Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹58,10,630/- under the head Medicines and Treatment.
Ambulance/ Conveyance Charges
83. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed ₹90,740/- towards ambulance/conveyance charges. Of this, ₹79,240/- is supported by original bills and ₹11,500/- by photocopies.
84. For the reason(s) already recorded, the amount supported by photocopies cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to ₹79,240/- under the head Conveyance.
Attendant Charges MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 40 of 63
85. PW1, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, in paragraph 34 of her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), deposed that ₹15,000/- was paid to an attendant from the date of accident till 27.01.2023. However, in the written submissions, the petitioner has claimed ₹1,32,000/- towards nursing/attendant charges for two months.
86. No original bills regarding hiring of any attendant have been produced. No particulars of the attendant engaged have been furnished. Only photocopies of two receipt vouchers dated 29.03.2022 and 30.04.2022, issued by Goodlife Healthcare, Gurugram, amounting to ₹89,000/-, have been placed on record.
86.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. vs. Kumari Lalita, 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some family members for the benefit of tortfeasor. 86.2 Having regard to the nature of the injuries, it can reasonably be inferred that the petitioner would have required assistance for his day-to-day care. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- is awarded towards Attendant Charges already incurred.
Physiotherapy
87. PW1 deposed that physiotherapy charges were paid at the rate of ₹2,000/-
per day till October 2022 and ₹1,000/- per day thereafter. In written submissions, the petitioner has claimed ₹4,36,000/- for the period 23.04.2022 to 31.10.2022 and ₹8,37,000/- for the period 01.11.2022 to 28.02.2025 towards physiotherapy charges.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 41 of 63
88. Apart from physiotherapy charges included in hospitalisation bills, the original physiotherapy bills produced on record aggregate to ₹12,825/-. 88.1 In the absence of documentary proof of the larger claim, the petitioner is entitled only to the amount reflected in the original bills. Accordingly, ₹12,825/- is awarded under this head.
Expenses Incurred on Special Bed
89. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed ₹40,000/- towards purchase of a special hospital bed and air mattress. It is claimed that ₹35,000/- is supported by original bills and ₹5,000/- by photocopies.
90. Out of the documents placed on record, two delivery challans issued by Vignaharta Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. dated 04.02.2023 for ₹7,000/- and dated 04.03.2023 for ₹5,000/-, aggregating to ₹12,000/-, are photocopies and therefore liable to be excluded.
After excluding the said amount, the petitioner is held entitled to ₹28,000/- under this head.
Bills from Amazon
91. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed an amount of ₹2,32,376/- towards bills generated from the online platform Amazon. It is submitted that the said platform was used to procure nourishing food and other miscellaneous essential items for the petitioner.
92. The petitioner has not placed on record any bank statement or credit card statement to establish that the amounts reflected in the Amazon invoices were actually paid. The said invoices are computer-generated documents MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 42 of 63 and have not been proved in accordance with law. Further, the invoices merely indicate that certain orders were placed and do not establish that the items were actually delivered and received by the petitioner or his family. Moreover, Amazon is a platform through which a wide variety of goods are purchased, and the possibility of mixed or unrelated purchases cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, no amount is awarded on the basis of the said Amazon invoices.
Special Diet and Miscellaneous Expenses
93. Though the petitioner has failed to prove the Amazon invoices, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner must have incurred expenses towards special diet and other incidental requirements. Accordingly, a reasonable lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- is awarded towards Special Diet and Miscellaneous Expenses.
Future Medical and Other Expenses
94. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the opinion dated 10.04.2024 (Ex. PW11/3) of Dr. Rana Patir regarding the future medical treatment required by the petitioner. 94.1 It is further submitted that the family of the petitioner could afford the services of a nurse and a physiotherapist only for a limited period and thereafter exhausted their financial resources. It is contended that, insofar as future treatment is concerned, the award should ensure that the petitioner is able to avail treatment in terms of Dr. Rana Patir's opinion.
95. The relevant extract of Dr. Rana Patir's opinion reads as follows:
"Mr. Bharat Ghai is suffering from severe traumatic brain injury due to road accident. This injury is such that he will be dependent throughout his life. His treatment will continue majorly at home with equipments required to manage his basic survival needs. He would require full time trained MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 43 of 63 nurse to take care of him at home. He might also need to be hospitalized for his treatment or further surgery or any other sort of medical needs. He would need Tracheostomy Tube in his neck for breathing throughout his life. He would need Ryle's Tube for feeding throughout his life span. He would need get these Tube changed every 15 days at hospital under doctor's supervision. He would need physiotherapy sessions twice everyday throughout his lifespan. He need special hospital bed along with air mattress to prevent bed sores. He should undergo blood tests every month to keep check upon his health. He needs regular prescribed medicines, daipers, underpads, suction Machine, suction Tube, vaccu suck set, NS Bottles, Gauze pieces, tissue boxes, gloves box on daily basis to keep his stable. He would need regular hospital visits for regular checkups, CT scans, X-RAY.
The approximate cost of above mentioned requirements:
Tracheostomy Tube: Rs. 2000 (Need to purchase twice a month) Ryle's Tube Price: Rs. 800 (Need to purchase twice a month) Hospital Visit for Change of Tracheostomy Tube and Ryle's Tube: Rs. 25000 Physiotherapist Charges: Rs. 45000 per month Hospital Bed Rent: Rs. 10,000 per month Blood Tests: Rs. 2500 per month Regular Hospital Visit for Checkup: Rs. 20,000 every 3 months Prescribed Medicines Cost: Rs. 30000 Daily needs: Rs. 2000 everyday Full time Trained Nurse (24 hourly): Rs. 75000 per month If he gets hospitalized: Rs. 50,000 Per Day expense If he undergo any surgery: As per surgery cost varies between 2.5 lakhs to 5 lakhs There can be other miscellaneous expenses which could arise as per his health conditions. It is expected that the nature and severity of injury is such that, he will remain dependent."
96. Insofar as the medical opinion of Dr. Rana Patir is concerned, while it is relevant in so far as it identifies the nature of the injuries and the broad parameters of care required by the petitioner, the cost estimates mentioned therein cannot be accepted ipso facto for the purpose of computation of compensation.
96.1 In particular, the recommendation that the petitioner would require hospitalisation every fifteen days for change of the Ryle's Tube and Tracheostomy Tube under doctor's supervision must be assessed in light of MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 44 of 63 the fact that the petitioner was discharged on 10.06.2023 and has thereafter been maintained by his family members, even without continuous nursing or physiotherapy support. This indicates that while medical supervision and periodic treatment remain necessary, the projected expenditure cannot be accepted mechanically and calls for reasonable moderation.
97. Future medical and other expenses, by their very nature, carry an element of uncertainty and cannot be assessed with mathematical exactitude. The Tribunal is required to strike a balance between ensuring adequate financial provision for continued treatment and guarding against speculative or excessive assessment.
98. The future requirements of the petitioner, with effect from 07.02.2025, can be categorised under the following heads:
(i) Future attendant charges;
(ii) Future physiotherapy charges;
(iii) Future transport/ambulance charges; and
(iv)Future expenses towards medicines, special diet and miscellaneous items.
Future Attendant Charges
99. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed a sum of ₹1,66,32,000/- towards future nursing/attendant charges.
100. From the medical evidence on record, as discussed above, it stands established that the petitioner suffered a road accident resulting in head injury and comatose state. He is bedridden with bowel and bladder involvement, and his disability has been assessed as 100%, with his MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 45 of 63 condition not likely to improve. The petitioner is completely dependent on others for his daily needs and medical care. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner would require the services of at least one full-time attendant throughout his lifetime.
100.1In Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Others, (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with the case of a 12-year-old girl who had suffered catastrophic head injuries resulting in 100% permanent disability, held that the multiplier method is to be applied not only for determining compensation towards loss of income but also for computing the future attendant charges.
100.2 No original bill regarding engagement or payment of any attendant have been placed on record. In the absence of concrete proof of actual expenditure, it would be just and reasonable to compute attendant charges on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker in Delhi. 100.3 Since the computation is to be made with effect from 07.02.2025, the minimum wages prevailing on that date, along with the age of the petitioner for purposes of multiplier, are liable to be considered. The minimum wages for an unskilled worker in Delhi as on 07.02.2025 were ₹18,066/- per month. The petitioner was aged 42 years and 3 months on the said date and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier is 14.
Accordingly, future attendant charges are quantified at ₹30,35,088/- (18,066 × 12 × 14 = 30,35,088).
Future Physiotherapy Charges
101. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed a sum of ₹1,51,20,000/- towards future physiotherapy charges. It is his case that regular physiotherapy is required and that the physiotherapist charges ₹2,000/- per day for two visits, amounting to ₹60,000/- per month.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 46 of 63
102. While the medical condition of the petitioner justifies the need for continued physiotherapy, the quantum claimed cannot be accepted mechanically on the basis of assertions made in written submissions alone. 102.1 As already observed hereinabove, apart from physiotherapy charges included in hospitalisation bills, the original physiotherapy bills produced on record aggregate to ₹12,825/-. No physiotherapist has been examined to substantiate the claimed rate of ₹2,000/- per day. In these circumstances, the claim of ₹1,51,20,000/- towards future physiotherapy charges appears to be excessive and unsupported by adequate evidence.
102.2 Considering the petitioner's medical condition and the fact that physiotherapy would be required, a reasonable lump-sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- is awarded towards future physiotherapy charges.
Future Transport/Ambulance Charges
103. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed ₹1,50,000/- towards future conveyance expenses.
104. Having regard to the medical condition of the petitioner and the nature of injuries suffered, it is evident that he would require transportation through ambulance services for medical consultations and other related purposes in future. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to a lump sum amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards future transport/ambulance charges.
Future Expenses towards Medicines, Special Diet and Miscellaneous Items
105. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed ₹2,01,90,420/-
towards future medical expenses, ₹12,60,000/- towards special diet, MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 47 of 63 ₹6,30,000/- towards blood tests, ₹1,26,00,000/- towards hospital visits for periodic change of Tracheostomy and Ryle's Tube. He has further claimed ₹16,80,000/- towards hospital visits every three months as advised by Dr. Rana Patir.
106. Taking into consideration the nature and severity of the injuries, the long-
term dependency of the petitioner, the medical advice on record and the past course of treatment, it would be just and reasonable to award a consolidated amount under this head instead of separately quantifying each item. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of ₹5 lacs is awarded towards future expenses towards medicines, special diet and miscellaneous items.
107. The amounts awarded towards (i) future attendant charges (₹30,35,088/-),
(ii) future physiotherapy charges (₹1,00,000/-), (iii) future transport/ambulance charges (₹1,00,000/-), and (iv) future expenses towards medicines, special diet and miscellaneous items (₹5,00,000/-) aggregate to ₹37,35,088/-. The petitioner is accordingly held entitled to a sum of ₹37,35,088/- under the head Future Medical and Other Expenses.
Interest on Future Medical and Other Expenses
108. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that no interest should be granted to the petitioner on Future Medical and Other Expenses.
109. Future expenses, by their very nature, are yet to be incurred by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the compensation awarded under the head of Future Medical and Other Expenses from the date of the award onwards.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 48 of 63 Contingent Medical Expenses
110. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the latter portion of the medical opinion of Dr. Rana Patir, wherein it is stated that if the petitioner gets hospitalised, the expenses may be approximately ₹50,000/- per day, if he undergoes surgery, the cost may range between ₹2.5 lakhs and ₹5 lakhs, and additional miscellaneous expenses may arise depending upon the petitioner's condition. It is contended that the petitioner may require hospitalization in future and, therefore, the medical expenses in such eventuality should be borne directly by respondent no. 2 by making payment to the concerned hospital, as otherwise the financial burden would be too onerous for the petitioner's family.
111. The latter part of Dr. Rana Patir's opinion merely indicates possible expenditure in the event the petitioner gets hospitalized or undergoes surgery. It does not establish that such treatment is either presently required or reasonably certain to arise in future. It does not provide any concrete or quantifiable basis for assessment of expenses. The latter part of the opinion of Dr. Rana Patir is, therefore, contingent and speculative in nature. Compensation is to be awarded on the basis of proved expenditure or expenditure that can be reasonably and objectively assessed, and not on uncertain future contingencies. In the absence of any definite medical opinion regarding the necessity of hospitalisation or surgery and in the absence of a concrete basis for assessment of the expenses likely to be incurred, no separate amount is awarded under the head of contingent medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 49 of 63 Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
112. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed ₹15 lacs towards pain and suffering, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Another, 2024 INSC 886.
113. Compensation under non-pecuniary heads such as pain and suffering cannot be determined by mechanically applying the amount awarded in another case. Each case has to be assessed on its own facts and circumstances. Therefore, the amount awarded in K.S. Murlidhar (supra) cannot be treated as a uniform benchmark.
114. In the present case, the petitioner is 100% functionally disabled and bedridden since the date of the accident. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the injuries as well as the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is awarded a consolidated sum of ₹2,00,000/- as compensation under the non-pecuniary heads of pain and suffering as well as mental and physical shock.
Loss of Amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
115. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has claimed ₹10 lakhs towards loss of amenities, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benson George vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., (2022) 13 SCC 142.
116. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Raj Kumar (supra) as under:
"15. 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 MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 50 of 63 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."
117. In the present case, the loss of future earning capacity has already been assessed by treating the functional disability of the petitioner as 100%. Grant of separate compensation under the head of loss of amenities would therefore result in duplication of compensation. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under this head.
Loss of Expectation of Life (shortening of normal longevity)
118. In the absence of any evidence on record regarding shortening of the normal longevity of the petitioner, no compensation can be granted under the head of loss of expectation of life. Moreover, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra), where compensation has been assessed by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100%, the need to award separate compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life may disappear so as to avoid duplication of compensation.
Loss of Consortium
119. The petitioner, in his written submissions, has sought ₹1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has four legal heirs, namely his wife, mother and two children. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maya Singh & Others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others, 2025 INSC 161.
120. However, Maya Singh (supra) was a case arising out of a fatal accident where the victim had lost his life. In the present case, the petitioner has survived the accident. The concept of consortium is ordinarily applied in MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 51 of 63 cases of death where the legal heirs suffer loss of companionship of the deceased. Therefore, the reliance placed on Maya Singh (supra) is misplaced and no compensation under the head of loss of consortium is liable to be awarded in the present case.
Other Heads claimed by the Petitioner
121. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation to the petitioner under any other head.
122. The compensation payable under various heads is summarized below:
Sl. Heads Amount
No.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
1. Loss of Future Earnings/ Income ₹52,11,213/-
2. Medicines and Treatment ₹58,10,630/-
3. Conveyance ₹79,240/-
4. Attendant Charges ₹1,00,000/-
5. Physiotherapy bills ₹12,825/-
6. Expenses Incurred on Special Bed ₹28,000/-
7. Special Diet and Miscellaneous Expenses ₹1,00,000/-
8. Future Medical and Other Expenses ₹37,35,088/-
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
9. Pain & Suffering pain as well as Mental and ₹2,00,000/-
Physical Shock.
Total Compensation ₹1,52,76,996/-
Liability
123. Respondent no. 1, being the principal tortfeasor, was primarily liable to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner. Upon his demise, his legal representatives/heirs step into his shoes. However, since the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL 9CAV 8246 was admittedly insured MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 52 of 63 with respondent no. 2 against third-party risks, respondent no. 2 is liable to satisfy the award.
124. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has contended that respondent no. 1 was holding only a learner's licence and was not accompanied by a person holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. It is submitted that this constituted a wilful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurer is absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Beli Ram vs. Rajinder Kumar & Another, (2022) 15 SCC 572.
125. Learned counsel for the LRs of respondent no. 1, without prejudice to her submissions on Issue No. 1, has advanced twofold submissions on the question of liability.
125.1 Firstly, it is contended that respondent no. 1 cannot be held liable as he was holding a learner's licence and was accompanied by a trained driver, namely Sh. Durga Shankar, who possessed a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that the driving licence of Sh. Durga Shankar is annexed with the reply filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and that the presence of such trained driver stands established from the cross- examination of PW1 dated 26.04.2023.
125.2 Secondly, it is argued that even if negligence of respondent no. 1 is established and it is held that he was not accompanied by a duly licensed driver, the LRs of respondent no. 1 cannot be saddled with the entire liability, as their liability is confined to the estate inherited by them from the deceased.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 53 of 63
126. As regards the first submission of the LRs of respondent no. 1, the same remains unsubstantiated. Sh. Durga Shankar was not examined as a witness. No evidence has been led to establish that he was present in the vehicle at the time of the accident in compliance with the conditions of a learner's licence. The reliance placed on the testimony of PW1 is misplaced. PW1 merely stated that the driver was accompanied by "some people". There is no evidence to establish that any of those persons was a duly licensed driver supervising the driving of respondent no. 1. In the absence of proof, the plea cannot be accepted.
126.1 With respect to the second submission of the LRs of respondent no. 1, it must be noted that they have not placed on record any material disclosing the estate inherited by them from respondent no. 1. 126.2 As far as the reliance placed by respondent no. 2 on Beli Ram (supra) is concerned, the same is misplaced. That judgment was rendered under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in a claim filed by an employee/driver against his employer/owner. The present case concerns third-party liability under the MV Act. The decision is therefore distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of the present case.
126.3 The burden of proving breach lies upon the insurer. In the present case, respondent no. 2 has discharged this burden by establishing that respondent no. 1/insured held only a learner's licence and that there is no evidence on record to show compliance with the condition of supervision by a duly licensed driver. It therefore stands proved that respondent no. 1 committed a wilful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by driving the offending vehicle without such supervision.
126.4 Accordingly, respondent no. 2, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., shall pay the award amount along with interest to the petitioner, with liberty to recover the same from the legal heirs/representatives of respondent MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 54 of 63 no. 1, namely Ms. Urmila Grover and Ms. Megha Grover, jointly and severally, in accordance with law, such recovery being limited to the extent of the estate inherited by them from the deceased.
Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Relief
127. In view of the findings on Issue No. 2, the petitioner is awarded a total compensation of ₹1,52,76,996/- (Rupees One Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Six only). The petitioner shall be entitled to simple interest @ 7.5% per annum on the sum of ₹1,15,41,908/- (excluding future medical and other expenses) from the date of institution of the petition, that is, 10.06.2022, till the date of compliance, that is, 15.04.2026.
The amount awarded towards future medical and other expenses (₹37,35,088/-) shall carry simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of award, that is, 16.03.2026, till the date of compliance. In the event the awarded amount is not deposited by the date of compliance, it shall carry simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay.
Direction(s) to Respondent No. 2:
128. In terms of Section 168(3) of the MV Act, the award amount along with interest shall be deposited/ transferred by the respondent no. 2, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi, IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 55 of 63 Release
129. Since the petitioner is 100% disabled and bedridden, the statement of his wife, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, regarding the financial status, needs and liabilities of the petitioner has been recorded. In her statement, Ms. Harpreet Kaur deposed that she has incurred loans of about ₹80 lakhs from her relatives, banks and credit cards in order to meet the expenses incurred on the treatment of the petitioner.
130. The details of the joint MACT bank account of the petitioner and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details Bharat Ghai and A/c no. 43598168316 at State Bank of India, Branch District Court Harpreet Kaur Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi IFSC Code: SBIN0011566.
131. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Others vs. Jaibir Singh & Others FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021.
132. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Others, Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 56 of 63 Schedule of Disbursal
133. Keeping in view the expenses incurred by the petitioner on his treatment and the loans taken by his wife Ms. Harpreet Kaur, fifty percent (50%) of the award amount shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the award amount shall be kept in the form of 100 FDRs of equal amounts for periods of one month to one hundred months in succession in terms of the MACAD Scheme.
Directions to the Bank(s)
134. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka is directed to comply with the Schedule of Disbursal provided in this Award.
The said Manager is further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any more joint name(s) to be added in the MACT account of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDR(s) shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDR(s) without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner for his MACT account. However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount.
135. The Form-XVI of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 57 of 63 (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 11.02.2022
2. Name of injured: Bharat Ghai
3. Age of the injured: 39 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured: Engaged in the field of event management (as claimed)
5. Income of the injured: ₹2,48,153/- per annum
6. Nature of injury: Grievous.The petitioner is 100% disabled and bedridden.
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Manipal Hospital, Delhi;
Venkateswar Hospital, Delhi; and Fortis Hospital, Gurugram.
8. Period of hospitalisation: From 12.02.2022 to 21.03.2022 and again from 23.05.2022 to 07.06.2022 at Venkateshwar Hospital, Delhi.
On 20.03.2023, from 27.03.2023 to
21.04.2023, and again from 28.04.2023 to
10.06.2023 at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram.
9. Whether any permanent disability? Yes.
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹58,10,630/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹79,240/-
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 58 of 63
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹1,00,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹1,00,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning capacity 100%
(vii) Loss of income ₹52,11,213/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require any Nil
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of his life
(ix) Physiotherapy ₹12,825/-
(x) Expenses Incurred on Special Bed ₹28,000/-
(xi) Future Medical and Other Expenses ₹37,35,088/-
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical Included in 12 (ii)
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil.
(iv) Disfiguration Not Applicable
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Not Applicable
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 100%, permanent in nature nature of disability as permanent or temporary MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 59 of 63
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Not Applicable of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in 100% relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income -(Income x % See 11(vii) Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹1,52,76,996/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED Simple Interest @ 7.5% p.a. on ₹1,15,41,908/- from the date of institution of the petition (10.06.2022) till the date of compliance (15.04.2026) and on ₹37,35,088/- from the date of award (16.03.2026) till the date of compliance (15.04.2026).
Simple Interest @ 12% p.a. for delay beyond the date of compliance.
16. Interest amount up to the date of award ₹32,60,589/-
17. Total amount including interest up to the ₹1,85,37,585/-
date of award
18. Award amount released 50%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 50%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Account Transfer amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the award 15.04.2026
136. The Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 11.02.2022 MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 60 of 63
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Accident Not Known Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Not Known Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the owner Not Known
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- Not Known Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Not Known VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- Detailed 10.06.2022 Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the No action warranted at this stage as it Investigating Officer? If so, whether any is not a case of prolonged delay. action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not Known Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No. Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Not Applicable deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company?If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimants(s) of the Not Applicable offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 16.03.2026
15. Whether the claimants(s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 61 of 63
16. Date of order by which claimants(s) 10.06.2022 & 23.10.2024 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimants(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 06.12.2024 the passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H. No. G- 65, 3rd Floor, Palam claimant(s) Village, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi-
110045.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Since the claimant is suffering from examined at the time of passing of the 100% disability and is bedridden, his award to ascertain his/their financial wife, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, was condition? examined in his place.
137. Dasti copy of Award be given to the parties free of cost.
138. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi for his information/compliance.
139. Copy of Award be also sent to the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 62 of 63
140. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
141. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 27.04.2026 for compliance report.
142. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed
SUDEEP by SUDEEP RAJ
SAINI
RAJ Date:
SAINI 2026.03.16
14:46:32 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI)
COURT ON 16.03.2026 PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No. 620/2022 Bharat Ghai vs. Raju Grover & Anr. Page No. 63 of 63