Delhi District Court
Saket Bansal (Dar) vs Indresh (426/21, Ppp) on 22 August, 2025
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU GUPTA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-01 (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No:420/22
Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors.
CNR No: DLSE01-006108-2022
1. Saket Bansal
S/o Sh. Shankar
R/o House no. 525, Pul Prahladpur,
South Delhi-110044.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Indresh
S/o Sh. Shankar
R/o 399, Main Mathura Road,
Badarpur, New Delhi
............Driver/Respondent no.1
2. Devender Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Tolaram Sharma R/o H. no. 92, Delta-2, Rampur Jagir, Gautam Budha Nagar, Surajpur U.P. ............Owner/Respondent no.2
3. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co.Ltd. Kailash Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
............Insurance company/Respondent no.3 MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 1 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:22:47 +0530 :2: Date of accident : 12.09.2021 Result of accident : Grievous Injury Date of filing of DAR : 06.07.2022 Date of Decision : 22.08.2025 AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report arises out of road accident that occurred on 12.09.2021, in which one Saket Bansal (aged about 21) allegedly suffered grievous injury.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.09.2021 at about 12 p.m. petitioner was heading towards Palla Goan, Faridabad Haryana on motorcycle bearing no.DL-SEV-1507. When he reached M B Road, Pul Prahladpur, he overtook a DTC bus from its right side. In the meantime, a dumper, which was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit a car which was behind the motorcycle of the petitioner. On being hit, the car turned to left side and then the dumper hit into the motorcycle of the petitioner. The dumper bearing no.HR-55R-8562 (hereinafter referred as to the offending vehicle) was seized from the spot. Injured was removed to the hospital for treatment.
3. An FIR no.426/21, dated 12.09.2021 was registered u/s 279,337 of IPC PS Pul Prahladpur, Distt-South East. Matter was investigated and a chargesheet, u/s 279/338 of IPC was filed before concerned criminal court while DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
4. Respondent no.1 is the driver, respondent no.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.3 is the insurer of the MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 2 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:22:52 +0530 :3: offending vehicle.
5. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed their reply denying the involvement of vehicle in the alleged accident. It is pleaded that the offending vehicle had a valid RC, certificate of fitness, permit and the driving licence of respondent no.1 was valid at the time of incident i.e. 19.06.2007 upto 26.02.2024. The Authorization certificate of N.P. (goods) of HR-55R-8562 was valid from 30.07.2021 to 12.03.2022. Copy of certificate fitness was valid from 25.03.2021 to 25.03.2022. The offending vehicle was insured by respondent no.3/IFFCO Tokio vide insurance policy valid from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.
6. Respondent no. 3/insurance company filed its reply/written statement denying its liability to compensate the petitioner on the ground that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
7. Vide order dated 24.03.2023, following issues were framed.
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 12.09.2021 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
HR55R-8562 (TATA Dumper) being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. In order to prove his claim, petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1.
To prove his claim, petitioner /Saket Bansal led evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He deposed on the lines of the MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 3 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:22:57 +0530 :4: DAR. He stated that on 12.09.2021 at about 12:10 p.m. he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing no. DL3SEV -1507 and going Faridabad from his residence. When he reached MB Road, Pul Prahladpur, Railway underpass, New Delhi, all of sudden a vehicle bearing no. HR-55R-8562 (make TATA) came from behind and hit the motorcycle of victim. Due to the impact, petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately taken to JPN Ape Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi where doctors have declared grievous injuries in his right hip and other injuries on all over his body. He was remained admitted in hospital from 12.09.2021 to 16.09.2021. He deposed that he was doing the work of Dariy product selling in Pul Prahladpur and earning of more than Rs.20,000/- per months. He further deposed that he is unable to do his work for aobut 6 months.
He relied upon his Adhar Card as Ex.PW1/1, PAN card as Ex.PW1/2, driving licence as Ex.PW1/3, MLC as Ex.PW1/4, Discharge summary as Ex.PW1/5 and DAR as Ex.PW1/5. He was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for insurance company/respondent no.3.
No evidence has been led on behalf of the respondents despite opportunity.
9. Final arguments in detail were addressed by all the parties. Now, on the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No. 1Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 12.09.2021 due to rash MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 4 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:23:01 +0530 :5: and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR55R-8562 (TATA Dumper) being driven by R1, owned by R2 and insured with R3? OPP
10. Before proceeding to decide the above issue, it is apposite to note that as a settled principle of law, proceedings under The Motor Vehicle Act are not considered akin to the proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not applicable. Reliance is placed upon decision in Bimla Devi & ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SC 535, in Parmeshwari vs. Amir Chand & Ors., 2011 (1) SCR 1096 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287, wherein it has been held that the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view has to be taken.
11. In the present case, petitioner/injured has examined himself as PW-1 wherein he has testified in detail, the date and manner of accident on the lines of petition. He has stated that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit him. This version of the petitioner qua the direction in which the accident occurred has been sought to be contradicted by the insurance company by relying upon the mechanical inspection report of the offending dumper as well as the motorcycle. It is seen that the damage has been noticed on the front left side of the offending dumper as well as front side of the motorcycle. The mechanical inspection report that the front headlight, petrol tank, handlebar etc. has been damaged with left gear changer pressed. It has thus been contended by the insurance company that since no damage has occurred on the rear side of the motorcycle, it is most likely a MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 5 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:23:05 +0530 :6: case of head on collision for which deduction is liable to be made on account of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner This argument of the insurance company is unsustainable in so far as the petitioner has not claimed to be 'hit from behind'. He has elaborately narrated the manner of accident not only in the FIR but also in his testimony wherein he has stated that the dumper 'came from behind' and hit his motorcycle from its front left side. In the FIR, which was registered without any inordinate delay, the petitioner claimed that the dumper hit the front (agle) tyre of his motorcycle. In these circumstances, the damage would had obviously resulted in the front portion of both the vehicles without it being a head on collision. While the petitioner has specifically stated how the offending dumper rashly hit the Renault Duster car and thereafter crashed into the front tyre of the motorcycle, respondents have been unable to explain in what manner the petitioner was rash or contributed to the negligence of the offending dumper.
12. Further, after investigation, even the police had filed chargesheet against respondent no.1 u/s 379/338 of IPC which is also suggestive of negligence of respondent no.1 in causing the accident. In National Insurance Co. vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it was laid down that completion of investigation and filing of chargesheet are sufficient proof of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
13. It may further be noted that in Cholamandalam Insurance Company vs. Kamlesh, 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 6 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:23:09 +0530 :7: an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In the present case also, driver did not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of petitioner or even to explain circumstances of accident.
14. In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioners have been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2 Whether the injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
15. In the instant case Insurance company/respondent no. 3 has raised statutory defence that the respondent no.1 did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of accident and thus was in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. To prove its defence, insurance company filed affidavit of Sh. Abhinav Jain, Authorized respresentative for the insurance company who relied upon the driving licence of respondent no.1. Though this witness was not examined by the insurance company, the documents relied by him primarily the driving licence of respondent no.1, has not been disputed or denied by respondent no.1 and 2. Failure to deny these documents is significant as the driving licence of respondent also forms a part of DAR and the chargesheet which has been relied upon by PW-1 and as such can MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 7 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:23:13 +0530 :8: be considered by the court.
Perusal of the driving licence shows the date of issuance of 01.03.2006 and its validity for transport vehicle as 11.02.2020 and for other vehicle as 28.02.2026. It has been pleaded that since the offending dumper was a transport vehicle, the licence stood expired on 11.02.2020 i.e. prior to the accident i.e. 12.09.2021. The written submissions filed on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 validate this defence raised by the insurance company as admitted in para 6 of such written submissions.
As there is no dispute that the offending vehicle is a transport vehicle, for which the licence of respondentno.1 stood expired on the date of accidet, there is clearly a breach of terms of the insurance policy.
As such, In such circumstances, the liability of compensation falls primarily upon the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. However since the accident pertains to 12.09.2021 i.e. prior to the amendment in MV Act, in view of the settled law, the compensation will be payable in the first instance by the insurance company/respondent no.3 with liberty to recover the same jointly and severally from the driver and owner of the vehicle in question i.e. respondent no.1 and 2.
16. Now as regards the issue of quantum of compensation, this court relies upon the judgments of C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. and Baker v. Willoughby which are referred and relied in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 Supreme Court cases 343 decided by Hon'ble SC wherein it has been observed MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 8 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:23:18 +0530 :9: that the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
17. Further it can be noted that the heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure;
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising;
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 9 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:23:23 +0530 : 10 : 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).
17.1. In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). 17.2. It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
17.3. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item (ii) (a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence.
17.4. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item
(iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. 17.5. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 10 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:23:27 +0530 : 11 : injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decisions of Hon'ble SC and Hon'ble High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. 17.6. It was observed by Apex Court in such case of Raj Kumar (supra) that what usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
--Item (ii) (a).
17.7. We are not concerned with assessment regarding loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability in this case, as petitioner did not suffer any permanent disability. Loss of income
18. Petitioner has claimed to be working in a Dairy at Pul Prahladpur and earning more than Rs.20,000/- per month. He has however not filed any proof of income or proof of running a any dairy or any proof of educational qualification. In these circumstances, income of the petitioner has to be assessed as that of an unskilled labour on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the time of the accident in Delhi (i.e. his place of residence as shown in his Adhar card). The same were Rs.15,908/- per month.
As per discharge summary prepared at JPN Apex Trauma Center (AIIMS) and the medical record, petitioner suffered grievous injury i.e. (PXR) Pregnane X Receptor, (SPR) Superior Pubic Ramus#, (IPR) Intrathoracic Pressure Regulation. In medical terms SPR refers to hip fracture which ordinarily takes atleast 6 months to recover. Though, petitioner's medical record reveals his period of hospitalization (from 12.09.2021 to 16.09.2021)as 5 days, the actual recovery would have taken MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 11 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:23:33 +0530 : 12 : much more time.
Considering the nature of injury and period of hospitalization, it is assumed that the petitioner may have remained bedridden for atleast six months. Hence, the loss of income would have been for six months i.e. Rs.15908X6=Rs.95,448/-.
Expenses relating to treatment:
19. In this case, claimant has not filed any medical bills. The only treatment record pertains to JPN Apex Truama Center which is a government facility not requiring any expenditure. Without any medical bills of treatment or expenditure, no compensation can be paid under this head.
However, petitioner is entitled to compensation towards conveyance, special diet and nursing attendant as Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.60,000/- respectively is granted to the petitioner.
20. The petitioner has not claimed any disability on account of injuries suferred by him. In fact, he has admitted in his cross examination that he has now fully recovered. As such, no compensation towards future loss of income can be granted in cases where petitioner has not proved to have sustained any permanent disability.
21. In this background, considering the material on record and evidence adduced in the present case, in light of the above discussion, award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum no. 1. (I) Expenditure on treatment : Nil. MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 12 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:23:39 +0530 : 13 : (ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : Rs.20,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.20,000/- (iv) Cost of nursing attendant : Rs.60,000/- (v) Loss of income : Rs.95,448/- (vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if Not applicable applicable) : (vii) Any other loss / expenditure : Not applicable 2. Non-Pecuniary Loss : (I) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.50,000/- shock : (ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.50,000/- (iv) Disfiguration : Nil (v) Loss of marriage prospects : NA
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (I) Percentage of disability assessed and NA nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA expectation of life span on account of disability :
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity NA in relation to disability:
(iv) Loss of future Income:
Total Compensation Rs.3,45,448/-
Deduction, if any NA
Interest: Simple interest
@7.5% p.a.
from the date
MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 13 Of 21 ss
Digitally signed
by CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.08.22
16:23:43
+0530
: 14 :
of filing of
DAR i.e. till
actual
realization of
Award
amount/
compensation.
22. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, including in the case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
23. The total compensation payable to the claimant would be Rs.3,45,448/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till its actual realization with recovery rights to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
LIABILITY
24. As already discussed, principal award amount/ compensation will be payable by the insuance company but with liberty to recover the same jointly and severally from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle with simple interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization.
Insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner with State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT PARKING FUND, MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 14 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:23:48 +0530 : 15 : A/c No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent side shall also furnish TDS certificate, if any to the petitioner.
In case, the interest of petitioner was stopped or excluded during the present inquiry proceedings, same is liable to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim Award, if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the total compensation amount.
Directions Regarding Deposit of Award Amount in Bank:
25. In compliance of directions issued vide order dated 16.11.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition Civil No.534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India the award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SAVING ACCOUNT No. 00000042706875094, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir in the prescribed format i.e. MCOP Number on the file of (Claims Tribunal Name) Date of award, Compensation Amount, Income Tax Deduction at Source, Bank Transaction Reference No./Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. In turn, the State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch shall receive the deposited sum and capture the above information and furnish a statement of account on a daily basis to the Nazir of this Tribunal to reconcile the deposits of compensation and the respective MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 15 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:23:51 +0530 : 16 : MCOPs towards which such deposits are made. On such deposits being made, the insurance company shall submit a letter to the Nazir of this Tribunal enclosing a copy of the said bank advice, in prescribed format as above, as per which the deposit made to the bank account of this Tribunal, to enable this Tribunal to keep tab on the deposits made and the MCOPs for which they were made. The Payment advice for remittance of compensation is as under:
PAYMENT ADVICE FOR REMITTANCE OF
COMPENSATION :
............ Bank ................... To:
............... Court ........................ We confirm remittance of compensation as follows on instructions of ................................... (insurance company):- MCOP Number On the file of (Claims Tribunal Name), Place Date of award Amount Deposited, Income Tax Deduction at Source, if any Unique Transaction Reference (UTR) Number. Insurance company of offending vehicle, on deposit, shall also send a copy of the payment advice in above format to this Tribunal and serve a copy of the same on the claimants or their counsel as the case may be.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 'MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE' (MCTAP).
26. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor Accident Claims Annunity Deposit Scheme) which has been made effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 16 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:23:56 +0530 : 17 : 07.12.2018 also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
27. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the petitioner.
28. At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cases 378:
"......In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court issued certain guidelines in order to "safeguard the feed from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation".
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows. In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting purchase of any movable property such as agricultural implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants, the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that the whole or part of the amount is MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 17 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:24:00 +0530 : 18 : required for expanding an existing business or for purchasing some property for earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or part of the amount of compensation to the claimant provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid. In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i), whereas in the guideline Nos.
(i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the society to which the claimant belongs and such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 18 Of 21 ssDigitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.08.22 16:24:05 +0530 : 19 : of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were to take a rigid stand while considering an application seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass appropriate orders after examining each case on its own merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner, ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants. Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are automatically ordering investment of the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant's application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation in a mechanical manner and without proper application of mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the amount of compensation should be invested in long term fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant even if it is required MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 19 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:24:09 +0530 : 20 : by him. Hence a change of attitude and approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the interest of justice..."
29. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances involved in the present case and the abovesaid guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court, Rs.3,45,448/-, Rs.1,45,448/- be released to petitioner in his bank account near his place of residence and remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be kept in the form of monthly FDRs of Rs.15,000/- p.m.
30. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and others. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 12.09.2021 2 Name of injured Saket Bansal 3 Age of the injured 21 years 4 Occupation of the injured Unskilled labour 5 Income of the injured as on Rs.15,908/-P.M. the date of accident 6 Nature injury Grievous injury MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 20 Of 21 ss Digitally signed by CHARU CHARU GUPTA Date: GUPTA 2025.08.22 16:24:14 +0530 : 21 : 7 Medical treatment taken by JPN Apex Trauma Center (AIIMS) the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization Approximately 5 days.
9 Whether any permanent Nil.
disability?
31. List for compliance on 22.09.2025.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in open Court
CHARU
CHARU GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
On 22nd August, 2025 2025.08.22
16:24:19
+0530
(Charu Gupta)
PO-MACT-01(South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
MACT NO.420/22 Saket Bansal vs. Indresh & ors. P.No. 21 Of 21 ss