Delhi District Court
Dar - Keshav Garg vs Shabbuddin on 21 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of :
Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr.
MACT no. 191/2019
Keshav Garg (Injured)
S/o Sh. Anand Kumar
R/o C-94, DDA Colony, New Jafrabad, Delhi. ...................Petitioner
Versus
1). Shahabuddin (Driver-cum-Owner)
S/o Sh. Babu Khan
R/o House no.20, Main 80 Feet Road, Shalimar Garden,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2). Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
A-2, 2nd Floor, Kirti Nagar,
Main Najafgarh Road, Delhi. .......................Respondents
Date of institution : 30.04.2019
Final arguments heard : 20.11.2025
Date of Award : 21.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present DAR (Detailed Accident Report) was filed in respect of the injuries sustained by the petitioner Keshav Garg, aged 15 years, in a motor vehicular accident occurred within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The DAR has been treated as claim petition under section 166 of 'Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' on behalf of the petitioner. ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 1 of 22 Pages
2. The material facts of the case as emerged from the DAR are that on 10.12.2018 at about 10:00 p.m., the petitioner Keshav Garg, aged 15 years, was travelling from Seelampur to his house on the pillion seat of the scooty, being driven by one Sagar Verma, an employee of his father and when they reached in front of street no.15, Main Road, Jafrabad, Delhi, a white colour car, make-EcoSports bearing registration no. DL-10CG-2000 (hereinafter, "offending vehicle"), being driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently hit the scooty from behind. As a result of the accident, the petitioner received grievous injuries and the driver of the offending vehicle succeeded in running away from the spot in the offending vehicle. The petitioner was taken to St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC no.733/18.
3. In connection with the accident, FIR no.709/2018, under sections 279/338 IPC, was registered at PS Jafrabad, Delhi. During investigation, it was found that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven and owned by respondent no.1/ Shahabuddin and was insured with respondent no.2/ Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet against the respondent no.1 was filed before the concerned court and the present DAR against the respondents was filed before this Tribunal.
4. At the time of the filing of DAR, both the respondents appeared and they were directed to file their written-statements, which have been filed subsequently.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 2 of 22 Pages
5. In the written-statement filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it is stated that the answering respondent has been falsely implicated in the alleged accident. Further, it is stated that the alleged offending vehicle, i.e., EeoSports car bearing no. DL10-CG-2000 was duly insured with the respondent no.2/ insurance company.
6. Respondent no.2/ insurance company in its written-statement stated that there is a delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and the investigation conducted by the IO (Investigating Officer) does not inspire confidence, as it does not mention the reason as to how the IO arrived at the conclusion that the accident was caused by the vehicle in question. It is contended that MLC also creates doubt over the accident by the vehicle in question, as the MLC states, "15 years/M pt. was brought to casualty on 10.12.2018 at 11:05 p.m. alleged H/o fall fracture BB forearm." It is contended that mechanical inspection report also does not match with the narration of the accident, as there are no such damages on the scooty of the petitioner or on the alleged offending vehicle, which could establish the factum of accident on the said date.
7. Upon pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 13.02.2020, following issues were framed:
1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 10.12.2018 at about 10:00 p.m., opposite street no.15, Main Road, Jafrabad, within the jurisdiction of PS Jafrabad, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL10-CG-2000, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 3 of 22 Pages
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
8. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner got examined only one witness:-
(a) PW1 Keshav Garg, the petitioner, testified by way of his affidavit Ex.PW1/A regarding the manner of accident, injuries received, treatment taken and losses suffered as a result of the accident and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. In support of his testimony, the petitioner PW1 relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Certified copy of criminal case record as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
(ii) Original discharge summary/ prescription of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/2 (colly).
(iii) Original bills of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/3 (colly).
(iv) Copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/4 (OSR).
(v) Copy of school Identity Card and qualification documents of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
(vi) Treatment papers as Mark A.
(vii) Copy of the Driving License of Sunil @ Sagar as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) (objected to mode of proof).
9. No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioner and at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner's evidence was closed. Respondent's evidence was also closed, as they opted not to lead any evidence.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 4 of 22 Pages
10. This Tribunal has examined two court witnesses, i.e., CW1 Sagar Verma and CW2 Shahabuddin (respondent no.1) and also examined HC Pradeep Kumar, IO of the criminal case under sections 168 of BSA (Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).
11. I have heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and also perused the evidence and other materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on 10.12.2018 at about 10:00 p.m., opposite street no.15, Main Road, Jafrabad, within the jurisdiction of PS Jafrabad, due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL10-CG-2000, being driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
12. It is settled proposition of law that, in an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine-qua-non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. However, that does not mean that a Tribunal which has been approached with a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act should ignore all basic principles of law in determining the claim for compensation. The relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to jettison all principles of law relating to a claim for compensation, which is still based on a tortious liability. Reference may be made to the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 5 of 22 Pages judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012; Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530; Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303; & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428.
13. Now coming to the issue in the present case, CW2 Shahabuddin Khan, respondent no.1 has stated as under:
"On 10.12.2018, I was driving the EcoSport Car and bumper of my car got touched a scooty on which there were two persons, because of which, the scooty fell down. I did not observe as to who was driving the scooty. After the accident, I stopped my car and came down and helped both of them. They were made to sit on the footpath. After few minutes, they asked me that I could go. The said accident did not occur because of my negligence. The accident occurred as the scooty driver took a sudden turn. Both the riders on the scooty were without helmet. In criminal court, I had paid Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for settling the matter."
14. The testimony of CW2/ respondent no.1 as reproduced above, makes it clear that respondent no.1 has admitted the involvement of his EcoSport Car in the accident in question while it was being driven by him on 10.10.2018. However, CW2/ respondent no.1 has disputed the factum of his negligence in causing the accident, stating that the accident did not occur due to his negligence.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 6 of 22 Pages
15. In view of the admission of the respondent no.1 regarding involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident while being driven by him, the contention as raised in the written statement of the insurance company that MLC creates doubt over the accident by the vehicle in question, as it states, "15 years/M pt. was brought to casualty on 10.12.2018 at 11:05 p.m. alleged H/o fall fracture BB forearm" is of no consequence as well as the delay of 6 days in lodging, the FIR also does not cause any dent to the case of the petitioner.
16. Ld. counsel for the insurance company has argued that at the time of the accident, the petitioner Keshav Garg was driving his scooty, which met with the present accident and being a minor, aged 15 years, at that time, the petitioner was not authorized to drive the scooty and therefore, the petitioner himself has contributed to the happening of the accident. On this aspect, it is noteworthy that the petitioner (PW1) in his affidavit has stated that he along with Sagar Verma was going to his home on scooty. Further, the petitioner Keshav Garg was also examined by this Tribunal under section 168 BSA and to the queries put by this Tribunal, he inter-alia stated that Sagar was driving the scooty, who was an employee in his father's shop, and EcoSport Car hit the scooty from behind. It may also be noted that the OPD Continuation Sheet of St. Stephens Hospital, prepared at 11:55 p.m. on 10.12.2018, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner (PW1) in his evidence as Mark-A, shows A/H/O hit by a car while the patient was sitting on the back seat of scooty. Moreover, CW1 Sagar Verma, aged 32 years, has also corroborated ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 7 of 22 Pages the fact that at the time of the accident, he was driving Activa scooty and the petitioner was the pillion rider. It is further noteworthy here that CW2 Shahabuddin Khan, driver of the offending vehicle, has stated that "I did not observe as to who was driving the scooty". Considering the version of the petitioner Keshav Garg, which has been corroborated by Sagar Verma, and the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not sure as to who was driving the scooty, the argument of the insurance company that it was the minor petitioner who was driving the scooty has no force. Thus, it establishes on record that the petitioner was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooty, which was being driven by Sagar Verma.
17. It has also been observed by this Tribunal that CW1 Sagar Verma has filed a photocopy of his driving license and exhibited the same as Ex.CW1/2 which was issued on 07.05.2019, whereas, the date of accident was 10.12.2018. CW1 has stated that the driving license, which he had at the time of the accident, was lost and he cannot produce a copy of his previous driving license. Since as the issue frame for the purpose of enquiry, that is the issue no.1 is that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1, therefore, the factum of holding a driving license by the Sagar Verma, who was driving the scooty is of no relevance. Accordingly, it is held that this is not a case of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.
18. Now the issue in hand remains to be decided only to the extent the accident of the petitioner was caused due to fault/ negligence of the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 8 of 22 Pages respondent no.1 in driving the offending vehicle. On this aspect, the mode and manner of the accident are to be seen with respect to which there are two versions before the Tribunal: one from the petitioner side and the other from the driver/ respondent no.1. The driver/ respondent no.1 Shahabuddin, who has been examined as CW2, stated that, "The accident did not occur because of my negligence. The accident occurred as the scooty driver took a sudden turn. CW2 stated that "On 10.12.2018, I was driving EcoSport car and bumper of my car got touched a scooty on which there were two persons, because of which the scooty fell down." The petitioner, when examined under section 168 of BSA, stated that "EcoSport Car had hit the scooty from behind." CW1 Sagar Verma stated that "while I was driving the scooty at the speed of 30-35 km/h, our scooty was hit from behind by the offending vehicle, i.e., EcoSport car and EcoSport car fled away from the spot." The mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, which is part of the DAR, shows the front bumper dented.
19. In the reply/written statement, which is filed by the respondents in the claim petition or DAR, which is treated as claim petition, the respondents are supposed to take all the defences which are available to them by stating the facts. In the written statement filed by the respondent no.1 in paragraph 5, the respondent no.1 states, "That the claim of the claimant/petitioner is imaginary and highly excessive and when no accident took place due to any of driving on the part of answering respondent. It is submitted that it was the petitioner himself who was driving his scooty in most negligent manner. In fact ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 9 of 22 Pages petitioner was riding a scooty here and there on the road. Thus, petitioner himself came in front of the vehicle of the respondent no.1. So, no claim can be passed against the respondent no.1 and as the petition is based on false, concocted and frivolous facts therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation from the answering respondent in any manner."
20. Nowhere in the DAR, it has been mentioned that it was the petitioner, i.e., Keshav Garg, who was driving the scooty. The case of the petitioner is that it was Sagar Verma who was an employee of the father of the petitioner who was driving the scooty and that the petitioner was sitting on the scooty as pillion rider; therefore, the entire averment in paragraph no.5 of the written statement of the respondent no.1 is factually wrong. It may also be mentioned that nowhere in the written statement, the respondent no.1 averred that his EcoSport car's bumper touched the scooty as the scooty driver took a sudden turn. Even if it is assumed that the facts stated by the respondent no.1 in his written statement as well as in his examination before the Tribunal are true, then also the petitioner being pillion rider is not responsible for the accident. In view of the defence taken by the respondent no.1, at best, the defence of the respondent no.1 would be the case of composite negligence entitling petitioner to recover the entire compensation amount from any of the tortfeasors and the tortfeasor who pays the compensation would be having the right to recover from the other tortfeasor.
21. The IO of the criminal case, HC Pradeep Kumar, in his examination under Section 168 of BSA, conducted by the Tribunal on 27.05.2025, ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 10 of 22 Pages stated that, "On the basis of complaint, FIR, reply to notice u/s 133 of Motor Vehicle Act, mechanical inspection report in which the front bumper of the offending vehicle was having a dent, MLC and site plan were the material facts and evidence collected by me on the basis of which I filed the charge-sheet against Shahbuddin".
22. Moreover, the driver/ respondent no.1 as CW1 has fairly admitted that in criminal court, he had paid Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for settling the matter and from this fact, it may be safely inferred that the respondent no.1 considering himself to be a wrong doer/ negligent in causing the accident of the petitioner had paid the said amount to the petitioner for settling the matter.
23. The MLC of the petitioner, prepared at St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi, which is part of the DAR, clearly shows the history of RTA and the the nature of injuries received by the petitioner as grievous.
24. In view of the above, it is held that petitioner has been able to establish on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities that he had sustained grievous injuries in the present motor vehicular accident, which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the respondent no.1. Issue no.1 is, accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
25. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins the claim Tribunal ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 11 of 22 Pages to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be a pittance. "Just compensation" cannot be equated with bonanza but it suggests application of fair and equitable principles and reasonable approach of the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. This reasonableness must be on large peripheral field. A man is not compensated for the physical injury which he might have received in the accident caused by the motor vehicle in a public place, rather he is compensated for the loss, which he suffered as a result of that injury that he suffered in the accident. [Ref. Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 34; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343; Puttamma v. K.L. Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45].
26. The scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases.
27. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
28. The petitioner/ injured (PW1) in his cross-examination has stated ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 12 of 22 Pages that he has claimed certain medical bills from his mediclaim insurance company and he voluntarily made it clear that few bills were not paid, which he has placed on record. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner (PW1) has filed certain original medical bills, the total amount of which comes to Rs.2,330/- only and he has proved the same as Ex.PW1/3 (colly). These bills are found in order and have been found to have not been disputed on behalf of the insurance company during cross-examination of petitioner (PW1). Hence, Rs.2,330/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of Earning During Treatment
29. The MLC of the petitioner at page no.16 of the DAR reveals that after the accident on 10.12.2018, the petitioner was removed to St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically attended vide MLC no.733/2018 and was observed to have received grievous injury. The discharge summary (Mark-A) shows that the petitioner remained admitted from 12.12.2018 to 14.12.2018. He was diagnosed to have suffered a transverse fracture of the left radius and ulna middle 1/3rd left forearm. During hospitalization, a surgical procedure was done on 13.12.2018 to treat the injuries. As per treatment documents Ex.PW1/2 (colly), vide medical certificate dated 15.12.2018, he was advised to take 15 days rest till 31.12.2018 and then vide medical certificate dated 27.12.2018, he was advised further rest from 27.12.2018 to 15 days. Except certain medical prescriptions of St. Stephens Hospital Ex.PW1/2 (colly) including above stated medical certificates, no further treatment record has been filed. Thus, considering the nature of injury and above ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 13 of 22 Pages treatment record, it may be safely assumed that the petitioner must not have been able to do any work for a period of two months after the accident and hence, petitioner is entitled to be compensated for the loss of income of said period during treatment.
30. The petitioner (PW1) has deposed that he was a student and during his examination under section 168 of BSA, he has stated that at the time of the accident, he was about 15 years of age and his father has a garment shop in Seelampur. Further, it has come in the cross- examination of the petitioner (PW1) that he used to go to his shop some time to support his father in his shop and even on the date of accident on 10.12.2018 at 10:00 p.m., he was returning from his shop and was going to his house. From said testimony of the petitioner, it discerns that apart from studying, the petitioner was also working sometimes at his father's shop. The school I.D. Card of the petitioner at page no.36 of the DAR, verified by the SHO concerned, shows that he was studying in class-X at Shaheed Rajpal D.A.V. Public School, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi and his date of birth of is 19.11.2003. Further, his Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/4 also shows the year of his birth as 2003. Accordingly, on the date of accident (10.12.2018), he was 15 years of age. Thus, the income of the petitioner, who was studying in class-X and was also assisting his father in garments shop at Seelampur, Delhi, may be assessed at par with minimum wages of a non-matriculate worker of Delhi at the relevant time (10.12.2018), which were Rs.15,400/- per month. Hence, the income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.15,400/- per month and accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,800/- (15,400x2) is granted to the petitioner on account ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 14 of 22 Pages of loss of income of two months during treatment.
Special Diet, Conveyance & Attendant Charges
31. Though the petitioner has not led any documentary evidence in respect of the money spent by him towards special diet, transport expenses and attendant charges. As per discharge summary, issued by St. Stephens Hospital, the petitioner remained hospitalized from 12.12.2018 to 14.12.2018. He was diagnosed to have suffered 'transverse fracture of left radius and ulna middle 1/3 rd left forearm' for which during hospitalization, his surgery i.e. open reduction and internal fixation of left radius with 6 hole LCDCP and left ulna with 7 hole LCDCP under GA was done on 13.12.2018. Considering the nature of injury and the period of treatment, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner had to spend a reasonable amount on high and rich protein diet for the purpose of early recovery, especially post surgery, as well as for visiting the hospital/ doctor during further treatment. Hence, petitioner is awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- for special diet and conveyance charges.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Pain & Sufferings
32. As per MLC no. 733/18, dated 10.12.2018, issued from St. Stephens Hospital, the petitioner has suffered grievous injury. Further, the discharge summary issued from the said hospital shows that he remained admitted in hospital for two days i.e. from 12.12.2018 to 14.12.2018. He suffered fracture of left radius and ulna middle 1/3 rd left forearm and had to undergo surgery on 13.12.2018 during hospitalization. Though no treatment record after discharge from ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 15 of 22 Pages hospital has been placed on record, however, nature of injury which the petitioner has received indicates that he must have taken further treatment. Thus, it is clear that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner/ injured must have gone through immense pain and suffering during his treatment and therefore, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
33. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.2,330/-
2. Loss of Earnings (During Treatment) Rs.30,800/-
3. Special Diet & Conveyance Charges Rs.50,000/-
4. Pain & Sufferings Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.1,33,130/-
34. However, with respect to the accident regarding which the Investigating Officer filed the DAR the Investigating Officer had also filed the charge-sheet in the jurisdictional criminal Court against the respondent no.1 as the accused. In the deposition of respondent no.1, it has come on record that in the criminal Court respondent no.1 had paid Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner for settling the matter and this fact has not been disputed to or denied by the petitioner. As the petitioner received the settlement amount with respect to the accident regarding which the present DAR was being inquired into by the Tribunal, therefore, from the total compensation amount to which the petitioner is entitled to, Rs.20,000/- is required to be deducted.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 16 of 22 Pages Accordingly, after deduction of Rs.20,000/- which the petitioner received before the criminal Court for settling the matter with respondent no.1, the compensation in this case comes to Rs.1,13,130/- (1,33,130-20,000).
INTEREST
35. The petitioner shall also be entitled for interest on the award amount.
However, vide order dated 26.04.2022, the petitioner was held dis- entitled to interest from 26.04.2022 till conclusion of entire PE (petitioner's evidence). The PE was closed on 30.12.2023. This case was filed on 30.04.2019 i.e. almost 6½ years back and after excluding the period of dis-entitlement of about 1½ years, the petitioner shall be entitled for interest for the period of five years. In view of above, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum for a period of five years only.
LIABILITY
36. As insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured and, in this case, the insurance company has not been able to prove on record that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by insured, therefore, respondent no.2/ Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited is held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount.
RELIEF
37. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed, the present claim petition is allowed and the following award is being passed:
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 17 of 22 Pages AWARD
38. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,13,130/- (Rs. One Lakh Thirteen-Thousand One-Hundred Thirty Only) to the petitioner along with interest @ 7% per annum for a period of five years only. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this award amount.
39. The respondent no.2/ Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit the award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT, Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today, failing which the insurer shall pay the interest @ 7% per annum for the delayed period.
Disbursement of Award Amount
40. The terms of disbursement shall be decided after compliance of the award and after furnishing his bank details by the petitioner.
Directions for Opening Bank Account
41. Petitioner is directed to get opened his saving bank account near the place of his residence and shall furnish details of his bank account for disbursement of the award. Further, for the protection of award amount, the Bank Manager of petitioner's bank is directed as under:-
i). No Cheque Book and ATM/Debit Card be issued to the claimant/ petitioner without permission of the Court. However, in case the ATM/Debit Card and/or Cheque Book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the amount. However, money may be released by means of withdrawal slip.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 18 of 22 Pages
ii). The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant.
iii). The Bank Manager is also directed to make an endorsement regarding compliance of aforesaid directions on the passbook.
42. As per Annexure-XIII of 'The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the relevant Forms to be incorporated in the award are as under:
FORM -XVI SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 10.12.2018
2. Name of the injured : Keshav Garg
3. Age of the injured : 15 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Student. Also working at father's shop
5. Income of the injured : Rs.15,400/- per month (as per minimum wages of non-
matriculate worker of Delhi)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Hospitalization
8. Period of hospitalization : 12.12.2018 to 14.12.2018
9. Whether any permanent disability? : Nil
10. Computation of Compensation S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.2,330/- (ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant (v) Cost of artificial limb Not applicable (vi) Loss of earning capacity -- (vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.30,800/-
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 19 of 22 Pages
(viii) Any other loss which may require Not applicable any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Not applicable
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, --
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning No capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and NA
nature of disability
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of NA
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning NA
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income x% Nil
Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,33,130/-
(However, after deducting
Rs.20,000/- already received by
the petitioner in criminal case,
actual compensation come to
Rs.1,13,130/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED @ 7% per annum
16. Interest amount up to date of award Rs.39,595/-
(for five years)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,52,725/-
18. Award amount released Would be decided after deposit
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 20 of 22 Pages of award amount
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Would be decided after deposit of award amount
20. Mode of disbursements of the award Bank Transfer amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of award. 06.01.2026 FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 10.12.2018 2 Date of filing of Form-I- First Accident Report Not available (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) Not available 4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver Not available 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner Not available 6 Date of filing of the Form-V- Interim Accident Not available Report (IAR) 7 Date of receipt of Form-VI- and Form-VIA Not available from the victims(s) 8 Date of filing of Form-VII- Detailed Accident Not available Report (DAR) 9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted? 10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not available by the Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within thirty (30) days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 21 of 22 Pages 13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer Legal offer not filed of the Insurance Company 14 Date of Award 20.11.2025 15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes saving bank account(s) near the place of residence?
16 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes saving bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar Card and the direction to the bank to not issue any cheque book/ debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the Yet to be filed.
passbook of their saving bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent Residential Address of the C-94, DDA Colony,
claimant(s) New Jafrabad, Delhi.
19 Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Direction given
is near his place of residence?
20 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the No
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/her/ their financial condition?
43. With the above observations, the claim petition/ DAR is disposed of.
Digitally signedFile be consigned to Record Room. VIJAY by VIJAY KUMAR JHA KUMAR Date:
JHA 2025.11.21 17:15:16 +0530 Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA) Court on 21.11.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara) Karkardooma, Delhi ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 191/2019; Keshav Garg v. Shahabuddin & Anr. 22 of 22 Pages