Delhi District Court
Kaushal vs Anil Kumar on 28 July, 2025
MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 106/21
CNR/UID No. DLNT01-001980-2021
Sh. Koushal,
S/o Sh. Lekh Raj,
R/o Gali No. 2,
A Block, Kh. No. 766.
Near Durga Chowk,
Rajeev Nagar,
Bhalswa Dairy,
Delhi.
(Injured) ......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Ram Dutt,
R/o H.No. K-377,
Gali No. 1A,
BLK Baba Colony,
Sant Nagar,
Burari,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Sh. Bhagwan Dass,
S/o Late Sh. Nand Lal,
R/o H.No. 20,
Gali No. 1, Block No. 1,
Baba Colony,
Burari,
Delhi.
(Registered Owner)
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 26
MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,
Janak Puri, Delhi.
(Insurer)
...............Respondents
Date of Institution : 23.03.2021
Date of Arguments : 28.07.2025
Date of Decision : 28.07.2025
APPEARANCES:
Sh. A.K. Singla, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
None for driver and owner(defence struck off vide order dated 05.05.2022).
None for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 & 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation AWARD
1. The petitioner is seeking compensation in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) filed by police corresponding to the investigation carried out in case FIR No. 2/20 U/s 279/338 IPC registered at PS. Bhalswa Dairy, with regard to Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on 27.12.2019 at about 4:15 PM near Ram Rahim Chowk, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, involving vehicle i.e., Taxi bearing registration no. DL-1ZB-1956(offending vehicle) being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. DAR filed by police, was treated as claim petition under Section 166(4) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act').
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
2. According to DAR, on 27.12.2019, the petitioner alongwith his neighbour namely Akash was going to Swaroop Vihar from their residence at Bhalswa Dairy on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-CP-7086 which was being driven by Akash. At about 4:15 PM, when they reached near Ram Rahim Chowk, Bhalswa Dairy, one white colour Taxi (i10 car) bearing registration no. DL1ZB-1956 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from front side and hit against the aforesaid motorcycle with a great force, as a result of which both the riders of motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, petitioner was taken to BJRM Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined. The offending vehicle was found to be owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd /respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
3. The respondents no. 1 & 2 i.e., driver and registered owner failed to file their WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunities. Subsequently, they have also stopped appearing before this Tribunal and accordingly, they were proceeded exparte. Their defence was also struck off vide order dated 09.09.2021.
4. In its written statement, the respondents no. 3/insurance company has claimed that the respondent no. 1 was not having valid and effective DL at the time of accident and thus, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. However, it is admitted that Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 alleged offending vehicle was insured with it at the time of accident. It has denied the averments made in the DAR petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 09.09.2021 passed by my Ld. Predecessor:-
1. Whether the injured Koushal suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 27.12.2019 at 16:15 hrs near Ram Rahim Chowk, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Bhalswa Dairy, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Sh. Anil Kumar who was driving car bearing registration no. DL1ZB-1956, owned by Sh. Bhagwan Dass and insured with Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd? OPP
2. Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3. Relief.
6. In support of his claim, the petitioner has examined two witnesses i.e. himself as PW1 and PW2 Sh. Surendra Singh, Record Clerk, Parnami Orthopedic Hospital & Joint Replacement Centre and his evidence was closed vide order dated 31.07.2024. On the other hand, no evidence was adduced by any of the respondents and RE of insurance company was closed vide order dated 31.07.2024.
7. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR petition, evidence led by parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and material relied upon Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 & proved considered. Arguments addressed by respective counsels considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding applicable precedents, have been appreciated.
Issue No. 18. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was placed on the petitioner. To prove the said issue, the injured examined himself as PW1 by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A). In his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A), injured has deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR petition. He has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. His original emergency Ex. PW1/1 to
registration card and treatment Ex. PW1/6
papers of BJRM Hospital,
Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
2. His original discharge Ex. PW1/7
summary of Parnami
Orthopedic Hospital, Azadpur,
Delhi.
3. His original OPD Card, X-Ray Ex. PW1/8 to
reports and treatment papers Ex. PW1/11
of Parnami Hospital
4. His original medical bills of Ex. PW1/12
Rs. 65,048/- (14 bills)
5. Copy of his certificate of six Ex. PW1/13(OSR)
months electrical training
course
6. Copy of his passport showing Ex. PW1/14(OSR)
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 26
MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
his date of birth as 04.06.1993
7. Copies of his election I Card Ex. PW1/15 & Ex.
and Aadhaar Card PW1/16(OSR)
8. DAR Ex.
PW1/17(Colly)
9. Copy of his PAN Card Ex. PW1/18(OSR)
9. PW1 injured in his testimony by way of affidavit (PW1/A) has deposed on the lines of DAR petition and has testified that on 27.12.2019, he alongwith his neighbour namely Akash was going to Swaroop Vihar from their residence at Bhalswa Dairy on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-CP-7086 which was being driven by Akash. He further deposed that at about 4:15 PM, when they reached near Ram Rahim Chowk, Bhalswa Dairy, one white colour Taxi (i10 car) bearing registration no. DL1ZB-1956 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came from front side and hit against their motorcycle with a great force, as a result of which they both fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He further deposed that police came at the hospital for recording of his statement but at that time, driver/respondent no. 1 requested him not to lodge any complaint and assured him that he would bear all his losses due to the accident. He further deposed that at that time only DD No. 33A dated 27.12.2019 showing the offending vehicle no. DL1ZB-1956 was registered in PS. Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi but thereafter driver of the offending vehicle did not contact him and on 02.01.2020, he went to PS. Bhalswa Dairy and got his statement recorded. He further deposed that the FIR was also lodged on his Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 statement. He categorically deposed that the accident took place due to sole rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no. 1.
10. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he was the owner of the motorcycle on which he was travelling at the time of accident. He further deposed that he was not having any driving licence. He volunteered that since he was not having any driving licence that is why he was sitting as pillion rider on the aforesaid motorcycle at the time of accident. He further deposed that Akash was driving the motorcycle at the time of accident and he had only sustained scratches in the accident in question. He further deposed that there was neither any red light signal nor any divider at the road where the accident in question occurred. He admitted that taxi which hit his motorcycle had already crossed the Ram Rahim Chowk. He depsoed that he was conscious after the accident. He further deposed that police came to BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri and met him after 15-20 minutes of the accident. He denied the suggestion that accident took place due to his negligence as he was in hurry and was trying to cross the chowk at that time. He denied the suggestion that he made a false story about his motorcycle being driven by Akash at the time of accident as he was not holding any driving licence at that time of accident and that is why, FIR in the present case was lodged after 5 days of the accident.
11. It is evident from the testimony of PW1 that the respondent insurance company could not impeach his testimony through litmus test of Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 cross-examination and said witness is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-examination despite he being cross-examined at length by the counsel for insurance company. Even otherwise, PW1 himself is the injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. Moreover, FIR No. 2/2020(Ex. PW1/5 colly) is shown to have been registered on the statement of this witness only. The contents of said FIR would show that the complainant/petitioner has disclosed therein the same sequence of facts leading to the accident as deposed by him as PW1 in his evidence. Hence, there is no possibility of any false implication of driver of offending vehicle or false involvement of the said vehicle in this case. On the other hand, none of the respondents examined any witness in order to rebut the testimony of PW1 during the course of inquiry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his uncontroverted testimony on the point of accident in question being caused by respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
12. No doubt, the accident in question had occurred on 27.12.2019 and FIR in the matter was registered on 02.01.2020, however, in my opinion the said delay has been sufficiently explained by PW-1/petitioner/injured who specifically stated in his statement recorded by the police that he could not lodge the complaint on the date of accident as the driver of offending vehicle undertook to bear his financial loss but when the same did not happen, he approached the concerned PS and got the FIR registered on 02.01.2020.
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
13. Be that as it may, GD No. 033A regarding accident caused by one car bearing no. DL1ZB-1956 with one bike was recorded in PS. Bhalswa Dairy, on the basis of a call received from caller on the date of accident itself i.e., 27.12.2019 at 16:25:37 hrs. Thus, it follows from the aforesaid discussion that the accident in question had taken place while respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed and he could not keep control over the offending vehicle and ultimately, hit against the motorcycle of petitioner. The facts and circumstances as brought on record, would show that said vehicle was being driven at very high speed due to which respondent no. 1 could not manage to stop the vehicle, which resulted into the accident in question.
14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances where the cogent explanation has been furnished about the delay in the registration of FIR in criminal case, same cannot be considered to be fatal for the case of claimant in present proceedings. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to throw away the case of claimant in such like proceedings in the backdrop of the conditions prevailing in our society where one cannot expect common man to rush to police station for registration of FIR immediately after the accident. While saying so, I am fortified by the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ravi V/s Badri Narayan & Ors.", Civil Appeal No. 1926/2011, decided on 18.02.2011. Hence, I am of the view that the delay of six days in Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 registration of FIR in this case has been sufficiently explained and the same is not fatal to the case of petitioner/injured.
15. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Anil Kumar has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s. 279/337/338 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
16. Further, there is no gainsaying that respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
17. It is relevant to mention here that copy of MLC (which is part of DAR) of petitioner filed would show that he was taken to BJRM Hospital, Delhi with alleged history of RTA on the date of accident itself i.e., on 22.12.2019 at about 17:17 hrs. On his local examination, he was found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, that he sustained injuries in road accident which took place on 27.12.2019 at about 4:15 PM near Ram Rahim Chowk, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2.
19. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
20. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 26
MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
21. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
"10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind. Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced guiding parameters that "the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance".
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
".....The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum....."
23. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner to just compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as discussed herein-above.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
24. The petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to BJRM Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined vide MLC No. 182089/19. He further deposed that thereafter he was treated as an OPD patient. He further deposed that on 03.01.2020, he was admitted in Parnami Orthopedic Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 Hospital, Azadpur, Delhi, where his left leg was operated by ORIF with interlocking nailing and discharged on 06.01.2020. He further deposed that thereafter, he had again taken treatment as an OPD patient. He further deposed that he was under treatment for approx one year. He further deposed that he had spent more than Rs. 90,000/-on his treatment and medicines. He has relied upon his original medical bills of Rs. 65,048/- and exhibited the same as Ex. PW1/12. He further deposed that rest of his bills and some treatment papers were misplaced. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he denied the suggestion that all his medical expenses were borne by owner of the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he had not spent Rs. 90,000/- on his treatment. He deposed that he had not lodged any complaint regarding loss of his remaining medical bills and treatment record.
25. It is relevant to note that the injured has relied upon medical bills amounting to Rs. 65,048/- (which are Ex. PW1/12 colly). It is not out of place to mention that the respondent insurance company has not been able to dispute the authenticity and genuineness of the medical bills filed on record during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 65,048/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 LOSS OF INCOME
26. Petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he was doing the work of Electrician and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further deposed that he was 10 th class fail. He further deposed that he had also completed six months electrical training course from Jan Shiksha Sansthan Prayas, Delhi. He further deposed that he was under treatment for approx one year and could not work and lost his earning at that time. He further deposed that being Electrician, he had to do hard work involving both legs and due to permanent disability of his left leg, he is unable to do so. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he deposed that he did not have any document to show that he was working as Electrician and earning at the time of accident. He volunteered that he had filed certificate of electric training course done by him and exhibited the same as Ex. PW1/13. He denied the suggestion that he was not working and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month at the time of accident.
27. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for injured argued that due to the injuries suffered by him, he could not work for considerable period and thus, he has suffered loss of income and as such, appropriate compensation shall be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
28. The treatment record (Ex. PW1/1 colly) of BJRM Hospital of petitioner shows that he was admitted in said hospital on 27.12.2019 and was Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 treated as an OPD patient. As per discharge summary (Ex. PW1/7) of Parnami Hospital, petitioner was admitted in the said hospital on 03.01.2020 and was discharged on 06.01.2020. As per the aforesaid treatment record, the case of petitioner was of comminuted fracture both bone left leg. It is also apparent from the treatment record that ORIF with interlocking nailing left tibia was done on 04.01.2020. The petitioner has failed to file any other treatment record. In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess work in assessing the loss of income. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Apart from this petitioner has also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to left lower limb. Considering the nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 3 months or so including his recovery period.
29. As already noted above, PW1/injured has deposed in his evidence that he was doing the work of Electrician and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Apart from the bald statement made by PW1 that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove his monthly income at the time of accident in question. However, the petitioner has relied upon copy of his certificate of six months electrical training course Ex. PW1/13. It is pertinent to mention here Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 that the respondent insurance company has not been able to dispute the authenticity and genuineness of said certificate filed on record during the course of inquiry. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said certificate. Even no suggestion was put to the witness regarding the genuineness of said certificate. Keeping in view the certificate of electrical training (Ex. PW1/13) of petitioner, I am of the view that income of injured should be assessed as per the minimum wages of skilled person, applicable in the State of Delhi as on the date of accident. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 17,991/- per month as on the date of accident which is 27.12.2019. Thus, a sum of Rs. 53,973/- (Rs. 17,991/- x 3) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
30. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."
31. As already considered, the petitioner suffered comminuted fracture both bone left leg and remained incapacitated to resume his work of earnings for a period of about 3 months owing to grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, duration of treatment and permanent disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
32. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by him and permanent disability suffered by him, I award a notional sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
33. PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he had spent Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- on special diet, Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- conveyance and Rs. 40,000/- on attendant. During cross- examination on behalf of insurance company, PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had not spent the amount stated by him in para no. 4 of his affidavit Ex. PW1/A on conveyance and special diet. He further denied the suggestion that he had falsely stated that his mother had to stop working causing loss of income to her. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid by him. At the same time, it cannot be Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to his left lower limb. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/-each for special diet and conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for attendant charges to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
34. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 5% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 05.01.2023 (Ex. PW1/19) of Medical Board of SRHC Hospital, Delhi. The said Medical Board assessed the disability of the patient to be permanent in nature which is not likely to improve.
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
35. It is pertinent to mention here that during cross-examination, PW1 has denied the suggestion that he had not suffered any disability as claimed by him in his affidavit.
36. Ld. Counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that no amount should be granted to the petitioner under this head as the permanent disability suffered by him does not pertain to the accidental injuries. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner is due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident and appropriate amount should be awarded to the petitioner under this head as per law.
37. For the purpose of calculating functional disability of the petitioner in relation to whole body, it is relevant to discuss the relevant judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The judgment "Raj Kumar Vs. Nitin Kumar Goyal & Ors." (supra), relied upon by the counsel for petitioner was of an injured who had suffered 76% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb and his functional disability with relation to whole body was taken as 40% by the Tribunal. However, in the appeal preferred by the injured before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the functional disability has been taken as 100% in relation to whole body. In the said judgment, petitioner/injured Ram Kumar has suffered 76% disability in relation to his left lower limb and he was labourer by Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 profession and the disability suffered by him had considerable effect on his work of labourer.
38. In the case in hand, petitioner was stated to be working as an Electrician at the time of accident and with permanent disability to the extent of 5% in relation to left lower limb, he can continue to work with the same avocation of Electrician. However, the petitioner would definitely face some difficulty in performing his duty of Electrician with the same efficiency as he could do prior to the date of accident.
39. The disability certificate (Ex. PW1/19) of injured would reveal that he had suffered 5% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner claimed himself to be an Electrician at the time of accident. It is quite obvious that for any profession, proper movement of limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the permanent disability suffered by him in the accident. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, his functional disability is taken as 2.5% with regard to whole body.
40. In copy of Passport (Ex. PW1/14) of petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 04.06.1993. The date of accident is 27.12.2019. Thus, the petitioner was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 appropriate multiplier would be 17 in view of judgment passed in case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 17,991/- per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 449.77p (Rs. 17,991/- x 2.5/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 1,28,454.31p (Rs. 449.77p x 12 x 140/100 x 17). Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,28,454.31p is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 65,048/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 53,973/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 25,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 40,000/-
attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 1,28,454.31p Total Rs. 3,62,475.31 Rounded off to Rs. 3,62,000/-
41. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.
3/insurance company did not adduce any evidence as it had no statutory Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 26 MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025 defence. It is nowhere the case of insurance company that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached/violated by insured. Keeping in view the existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no. 3/insurance company becomes liable to pay the compensation amount, as insurance company is liable to indemnify the insured. Issue no. 2 is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3/RELIEF
42. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 & 2, I award a sum of Rs. 3,62,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum w.e.f date of filing the claim petition i.e. 23.03.2021 till the date of its realization, in favour of petitioner and against the respondents. (Reliance placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 21.04.2023).
APPORTIONMENT
43. Statement of petitioner in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP was recorded on 30.01.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that entire awarded amount alongwith interest shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his MACT bank account no. 18720110049808 with UCO Bank, A-1/120, Prashant Vihar, Sector - 14, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code UCBA0001872, as per rules.
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 26MACP No. 106/21; FIR No. 2/20.; PS. Bhalswa Dairy DOD: 28.07.2025
44. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the entire award amount alongwith interest in the aforesaid bank account of the claimant within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. (Reliance is placed on latest judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.", S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.)
45. In view of the above, concerned Manager of petitioner's bank is directed to release the entire amount to the petitioner as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to this Court. He is further directed to send compliance report to this Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioner is also directed to provide copy of this award to his bank Manager for compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP.
Digitally signed by RICHA MANCHANDAAnnounced in the open RICHA
MANCHANDA Date:
2025.07.28
Court on 28.07.2025 15:59:11 +0545
(Richa Manchanda)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Koushal Vs. Anil Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 26