Delhi District Court
Sachin Mishra vs Hari Om on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.449/2018
FIR no. 84/2018
PS: Jaitpur
U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC & 3/181, 185 MV Act
CNR No. DLSE01-002697-2018
Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr
Sachin Mishra
S/o Virender Kumar
R/o H.No. 23/222, Trilokpuri
Patparganj, SO East Delhi, Delhi-110091.
...Claimant
Versus
1. Hari Om
S/o Sh. Ram Narayan
R/o H. No. 106, Rasoolpur,
Sultanpuri, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Driver cum owner/ R-1
2. Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
DTJ -415, 4th Floor
DLF-Tower B, Jasola Distt. Centre,
New Delhi.
..... Insurance Company/R-2
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 1 of 33 (rpt)
Date of accident : 13/14.02.2018
(midnight)
Date of filing of petition : 02.04.2018
Date of Decision : 20.12.2025
AWARD
1. Claim Petition:
(a) Claim petition under Section 166 and 140 M.V. Act was
filed on 02.04.2018 by Sh. Sachin Mishra, (hereinafter called the
injured /claimant) on account of injury sustained by him
allegedly in an accident which took place on 14.02.2018 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP-32 HK 0402
(hereinafter referred as Offending Vehicle), driven & owned by
Sh. Hari Om (hereinafter referred as R-1) and insured with M/s
Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as R-2).
2. BRIEF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION:
(a). On 14.02.2018 at about 11:45 PM, the claimant/injured,
along with Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Sh. Abhay Tiwari, Sh. Shubham
Pandey, Ms. Neha Tiwari, Sh. Triyugi Nath Tiwari, Sh. Vikash
Tiwari were returning to their residence in a car bearing
registration No. DL 14CD 0275 after attending a marriage in
Jaitpur. When they reached Agra Canal Road, near Lakkar
Market, Kanchan Kunj, Madanpur Khadar, Jaitpur, New Delhi, a
speedily and rashly driven vehicle bearing registration No. UP
32HK 0402 (XUV) came from the opposite direction on the
wrong side of the road and collided with car No. DL 14CD 0275.
As a result, all occupants of the car sustained serious injuries.
Further, Sh. Vikash Tiwari and Sh. Triyugi Nath Tiwari
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 2 of 33 (rpt)
succumbed to the injuries and died in the accident. The
claimant/injured Rohit Tiwari was first admitted in AIIMS and
then referred to to Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi.
3. Particulars of DAR:
(a) It is noted that, since the accident occurred within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal, a Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
was also filed by the Investigating Officer in a connected matter
bearing MACT No. 939/2018. As per the facts of the DAR,
preliminary information regarding the accident was received at
PS Jaitpur at midnight of 13/14.02.2018 vide DD No. 3A. Upon
receipt of the information, the police officials, including the IO,
proceeded to the spot at Agra Canal Road in front of Lakkar
Market. They found a Celerio car bearing registration No. DL
14CD 0275 (the accidental vehicle in the present case) on the
road towards Mithapur and the offending vehicle bearing
registration No. UP 32HK 0402 on the road coming from Kalindi
Kunj, both in a damaged condition. The rear portion of the
offending vehicle was lying in the middle of the road facing east
and the engine portion was lying towards the west, on the wrong
side of the road. Both vehicles were damaged from the front.
Bloodstains and spilled items were found in the vehicles. It was
also noted that a whisky bottle of the brand "Signature" was lying
on the front seat of the offending XUV.
(b) Police officials then proceeded to AIIMS Trauma Center,
where they obtained the MLCs of the injured persons, namely
Abhay Tiwari, Shubham, Vikash, Triloki Nath Tiwari, and Hari
Om, all with an alleged history of a road traffic accident. Injured
Abhay, Shivam, and Hari Om were declared unfit for giving
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 3 of 33 (rpt)
statements. Police officials also obtained the MLCs of injured
Sachin, Kuldeep, Rohit Tiwari, and Neha from Apollo Hospital,
who were also declared unfit for giving statements.
(c) The statement of ASI Maharaj Singh was recorded. He
stated that on 13/14.02.2018 he was on patrolling duty in the
ERV vehicle from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM along with HC Sher
Singh. When they were proceeding towards Mithapur from
Kalindi Kunj via Agra Canal Road, at about 11:50-12:00
midnight, they heard a loud noise of a collision. On reaching the
spot, they found that the offending XUV had struck the Celerio
car from the wrong side. The injured occupants of both vehicles
were screaming for help. He further stated that two boys were
trapped inside the XUV. With the assistance of HC Sher Singh
and other members of the public, he rescued Hari Om, who was
stuck in the driver's seat, and Kuldeep from the co-driver's seat.
They also rescued the injured occupants of the Celerio car. All
injured persons from both vehicles were taken to AIIMS Trauma
Centre, while some were shifted to Apollo Hospital. Vikash
Tiwari and Triloki Nath Tiwari were declared brought dead. An
FIR was registered under the relevant provisions of law.
(d) Both vehicles were seized and got mechanically inspected.
The whisky bottle found in the offending vehicle was also seized
by the IO. Post-mortem examinations of the deceased were
conducted. The documents of the offending vehicle were
obtained and verified and found to be in order. The driver of the
offending XUV could not produce his driving licence upon
inquiry and was penalized under Section 3/181 of the MV Act.
The IO obtained medical opinions regarding the nature of
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 4 of 33 (rpt)
injuries, which were opined to be "grievous" to some of the
injured and "simple" for rest of them. Post-mortem reports of the
deceased were also collected. Statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. of the injured persons were recorded. After completion of
the investigation, the driver of the offending XUV was
chargesheeted under the relevant penal provisions. The DAR was
accordingly filed by the IO.
4. Written Statement/ Reply:
(a). In WS/ Reply filed on behalf of R-1/ driver cum owner, it
is submitted that R-1 has falsely been implicated in this matter as
the XUV vehicle bearing Reg. No. UP 32HK 0402 was actually
driven by his driver namely Kuldeep. He further submitted that
the accident caused due to the negligence on part of driver of
Celerio bearing Reg. No. DL 14C 0275 who drive the accidental
car in rash and negligent manner and hit the XUV resulting
injuries to occupants of XUV. He also stated that he lost one eye
from the injuries sustained in the accident. It is further submitted
that R-1/ driver was holding valid driving license at the time of
accident while has falsely been implicated under 3/181 MV Act
by IO.
(b). A Written Statement/Reply has also been filed on behalf of
the insurance company, wherein statutory defences have been
raised. The insurer has contended that the driver of the offending
vehicle was allegedly driving without a valid driving licence and
under the influence of alcohol, which amounts to a breach of the
terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, the
insurance company has sought to avoid its liability.
(c). It was further argued that the driver of the victims' vehicle
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 5 of 33 (rpt)
(Celerio), was also negligent, as the vehicle was carrying seven
occupants against its permissible seating capacity of five persons.
It is alleged that two persons were seated in the front passenger
seat next to the driver, which allegedly hampered the
driver/claimant's ability to control the vehicle. The insurer has
contended that travelling with occupants in excess of the
permissible seating capacity amounted to overloading and
contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The validity and
genuineness of the insurance policy, however, have been
admitted.
5. Issues:
(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 03.12.2018:
1) Whether the injured Sachin Mishra suffered
injuries in a road traffic accident on 14.02.2018
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
UP 32HK 0402 being driven and owned by R-1
and insured with R-2 ? OPP.
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
6. Evidence:
(a) Matter was then listed for evidence. PW-1 Injured/ Sachin
Mishra tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied
upon copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1 and Medical Bills
and other treatment documents as Ex.PW1/2.
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for driver cum
owner as well as counsel for insurance company.
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 6 of 33 (rpt)
(b) Petitioner Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for
Respondent Evidence.
(c) R1W1 Hari Om (driver cum owner of offending vehicle to the present accident) tendered his Evidentiary Affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A. He relied upon various documents as Ex.R1W1/1 to Ex.R1W1/5 including his Aadhar Card and Driving License. He was also crosse examined at length by counsel for insurance company.
(d) Respondent Evidence was then closed. Matter was thereafter listed for final arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
(a) Final arguments were advanced by counsel for claimant as well as counsel for R-2/ Insurance Company.
(b) Counsel for the claimant argued that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and reckless driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, who had entered the wrong side of the road and violently struck the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling. It was submitted that the manner of the collision itself leaves no scope for any doubt regarding the negligence of the offending vehicle. Counsel further contended that there is no dispute whatsoever with respect to the involvement of the offending vehicle or the identity of its driver. It was further argued that, at the time of the accident, the injured /claimant was engaged in a private job and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. It is further contended that due to the grievous injuries sustained in the accident, his normal life has been severely disrupted. It was submitted that the injuries have not only caused prolonged physical suffering but have also adversely affected his earning capacity, thereby placing him and his family under severe MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 7 of 33 (rpt) financial strain. Counsel urged that the claimant has suffered both physical and economic hardship and is, therefore, entitled to just and reasonable compensation. Written Submissions also filed on behalf of claimant.
(c) No one appeared on behalf of R-1/ driver cum owner to make any submissions during Final Arguments.
(d) The insurance company, on the other hand, contended that the present case squarely falls within the category of breach of policy conditions. It was argued that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and was, therefore, driving the vehicle in violation of the statutory requirements. It was further contended that the driver was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time and, on account of the said conduct, he was charge-sheeted under the appropriate provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving without a valid licence as well as for drunken driving.
Counsel for the insurance company further submitted that the driving licence subsequently produced by the driver Hari Om, purportedly issued from the State of Manipur, is a procured document obtained at a belated stage only to evade liability. It was argued that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the said licence raise serious doubts about its authenticity, particularly in view of the fact that the driver admittedly belongs to Uttar Pradesh and was residing in Faridabad at the time of the accident. It was also contended that the driver attempted to mislead the investigation by falsely projecting one Kuldeep as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, which further undermines the credibility of his defence.
(e) In support of her submissions, counsel for the insurance MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 8 of 33 (rpt) company placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Indraprastha Logistics Private Limited vs. Naveen Kumar & Ors., MAC APP No. 113/2021, to contend that in cases of established drunken driving, the insurance company is entitled to recovery rights.
(f) It was further argued that the driver of the victims' vehicle (Celerio), was also negligent, as the vehicle was carrying seven occupants against its permissible seating capacity of five persons. According to the insurance company, such overloading materially contributed to the occurrence of the accident, and therefore, the case warrants a finding of contributory negligence on the part of the occupants of the Celerio car.
8. Discussion:
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether the injured Sachin Mishra suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on 14.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
UP 32HK 0402 being driven and owned by R-1 and insured with R-2 ? OPP.
(a). PW-1/claimant Sachin Mishra affirmed in his evidentiary affidavit Ex.PW1/A that on 13.02.2018 at about 11:45 PM (though as per the DAR, the accident occurred between the midnight of 13.02.2018 and 14.02.2018), he, along with Rohit Tiwari, Shubham Pandey, Neha Tiwari, Triyugi Nath Tiwari, Vikash Tiwari and Abhay Tiwari, was returning home in a Celerio car bearing registration No. DL-14CD-0275 after attending a marriage ceremony at Jaitpur. When they reached Agra Canal Road near Lakkar Market, Kalindi Kunj, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, their vehicle was hit from the wrong side by MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 9 of 33 (rpt) a rashly and speedily driven vehicle bearing registration No. UP-32HK-0402. As a result, the occupants of the Celerio car sustained serious injuries, and Vikash Tiwari and Triyugi Nath Tiwari succumbed to their injuries.
(b) During cross-examination by counsel for driver cum owner, PW-1 clarified that the occupants in the front seat had all fastened seat belts. He specified that on the co-driver seat, Abhay Tiwari and Triyugi Nath Tiwari were seated and both had fastened seat belts together. He further specified that four persons were seated in the back side of the Celerio car. He also clarified that there was no divider at the site of the accident and vehicle were plying on both sides of the road. He specified that there was no red light and speed breaker on the road at the spot, however further clarified that there was visibility at the site of accident. He further admitted that he is the registered owner of the Celerio car. He further admitted that he is aware that the sitting capacity of the car is five whereas 7 occupants were travelling in the car including him. He denied the suggestion that he was driving the Celerio car in rash and negligent manner or the accident took place as the Celerio car was overloaded and he lost control over the said car.
(d) Contrary to the allegations made by the injured/ claimant and the contents of the charge sheet, Respondent No.1, the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle, filed his written statement wherein he asserted that at the time of the accident, the vehicle (XUV) was being driven by his driver, Kuldeep. He further examined himself as a witness and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. R1W1/1).
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 10 of 33 (rpt)
(e) He also examined himself in the witness box. In his evidentiary affidavit, Respondent No.1 deposed that on 13.02.2018 at about 11:30 PM, he along with his driver Kuldeep was travelling from Noida to Faridabad. He stated that he was seated on the front co-driver seat next to Kuldeep, who was driving the vehicle. Upon reaching near Lakkar Market, Kalindi Kunj, a car bearing registration No. DL-14-CD-0275 allegedly came from the Faridabad side in a rash and negligent manner and struck their vehicle from the front, causing extensive damage. He further deposed that as a result of the impact, he lost consciousness and, upon regaining consciousness, found himself admitted to Apollo Hospital. He claimed that due to the accident, he suffered complete loss of vision in both eyes; however, after undergoing major surgery, the vision in his right eye was restored to the extent of approximately 70%, whereas the left eye was completely damaged. He further stated that an artificial eye was transplanted in his left eye. He also claimed that at the time of the accident, he was holding a valid driving licence.
(f) In the present case, the accidental vehicle, i.e., a Celerio car, was carrying seven occupants, all of whom sustained injuries in the accident. Tragically, two out of the seven occupants succumbed to their injuries. It is pertinent to note that a Detailed Accident Report (DAR) has also been filed in one of the connected matters. As per the DAR and the statements of the victims, the accident occurred in the intervening night of 13.02.2018 and 14.02.2018 at about 11:30 PM, which also consistently reflected in the subsequent documents prepared in connection with the accident. The information regarding the MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 11 of 33 (rpt) accident was first received and recorded vide DD No. 3A dated 14.02.2018, which notes that the information was received at about 12:02 AM (midnight). The police authorities promptly acted upon the said information. Both the accidental vehicle and the offending vehicle were found at the spot in accordance with the information received. The accident was witnessed by several persons, including the victims themselves, nearby public persons, and the police officials who arrived at the spot soon after receiving the information. The police also recorded the statements of several witnesses having direct or indirect knowledge of the incident. All the injured victims were rescued by the police personnel with the assistance of nearby public persons and were shifted to hospitals for medical treatment. The medical records from AIIMS Trauma Centre and Apollo Hospital, which form part of the record, corroborate the occurrence of the road traffic accident as well as the rescue operations and subsequent hospitalization of the victims.
(g) There is no dispute between the contesting parties regarding the occurrence of the accident in question. However, the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Hari Om (Respondent No.1), attempted to shift the primary negligence upon the driver of the Celerio car, alleging that the said vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. Simultaneously, it was also sought to be projected that rather it was Kuldeep who was driving the XUV vehicle at the relevant time and not it was Hari Om. However, the version of R-1/ driver cum owner in his defence does not inspire confidence and stands weakened from the material available on record. As per the Detailed Accident MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 12 of 33 (rpt) Report (DAR), Hari Om was rescued by the police officials from the driver seat of the offending XUV, whereas Kuldeep was rescued from the co-driver seat. The said position is duly reflected from the statements of police officials and other contemporaneous documents forming part of the DAR. Further, during cross-examination, R1W1 (Hari Om) himself admitted that he had become unconscious immediately after the accident. This admission assumes significance, as it rules out any reasonable possibility of exchange of seats after the accident. The consistent and cogent documentary and oral evidence thus clearly establishes that Hari Om himself was driving the offending XUV at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the plea raised to dispute his role as the driver is rejected.
(h) The next and more crucial aspect for determination is the issue of rashness and negligence and whether the act of the vehicle which had a direct causal connection with the accident. In this regard, it is an admitted and well-established fact on record that the offending XUV was found on the wrong side / lane of the road. The DAR, including the site plan, mechanical inspection report, and statements of witnesses, including police officials, consistently indicate that the XUV had crossed onto the opposite lane. Although the road at the place of accident did not have a physical divider, it was clearly demarcated for two-way traffic by road markings. Driving beyond the designated lane and entering the opposite carriageway amounts to a clear violation of traffic norms and, by itself, constitutes negligence. The presence of the offending vehicle on the wrong side of the road sufficiently establishes that the accident occurred due to the fault of the MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 13 of 33 (rpt) driver of the XUV. As regards the manner of driving, while there is no direct evidence of the exact speed of the offending vehicle, the surrounding circumstances provide a reasonable inference. The accident occurred around midnight, when less traffic generally moves, increasing the likelihood of vehicles being driven at higher speeds. On undivided roads, higher speed often results in unsafe overtaking and loss of lane discipline. The severity of the impact, the frontal collision, and the fact that occupants of the vehicle were trapped inside, leaving no scope for self-rescue, further indicate that the offending vehicle was being driven at a speed unsafe for the road and traffic conditions prevailing at that time.
(i) So far as the contention raised by the insurance company that the driver of the Celerio car was guilty of contributory negligence on account of carrying passengers beyond the permissible seating capacity is concerned, the same does not merit acceptance. It is not disputed that at the time of the accident, seven persons were travelling in the Celerio car. Mere violation of seating capacity, however, does not ipso facto lead to an inference of contributory negligence unless it is further shown that such overloading had a direct and proximate causal connection with the occurrence of the accident. In the present case, no evidence has been brought on record by the insurance company to demonstrate that the alleged overloading of the Celerio car either resulted in loss of control or otherwise contributed to the happening of the accident. There is no material to show that the driver of the Celerio was unable to steer, brake, or respond to the traffic situation due to the presence of extra two MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 14 of 33 (rpt) passengers. The plea of contributory negligence has remained a bare assertion, unsupported by any technical, ocular or documentary evidence. On the contrary, the evidence on record consistently establishes that the offending XUV was being driven on the wrong side of the road and collided head-on with the Celerio. The cause of the accident thus stands clearly attributable to the wrongful act of entering the opposite lane by the offending vehicle. The mere fact that the Celerio was carrying passengers beyond its seating capacity, though a statutory violation, does not dilute or neutralize the primary negligence of the offending vehicle, nor does it shift any portion of liability in the absence of proof of a causal nexus. It is well settled that contributory negligence cannot be presumed and must be proved by cogent evidence. In the absence of any such proof showing that overloading of the Celerio had any role to play in causing or contributing to the accident, the plea raised by the insurance company is rejected.
(j) As per the charge sheet, Respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle, has been charge-sheeted for causing injuries to several occupants and the death of two victims on account of his rash and speedy driving. There is nothing on record to disbelieve or contradict the basis of the charge sheet. The material placed before the Tribunal leaves no room for doubt that Hari Om was negligent while driving the offending vehicle. The injured claimant in the present case, as well as the other victims of the accident, have consistently and categorically supported the same material facts in their respective testimonies clearly establishsing that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 15 of 33 (rpt) offending XUV.
(k) It is settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C) No. 10351/2019).
(l) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in motor accident cases should be determined based on the preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew Alexander vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
(m). The entirety of the evidence discussed points to the inescapable conclusion that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In light of the aforementioned findings, Issue No. 1 is hereby decided in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 16 of 33 (rpt) ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
9. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable. Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter X. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award. (3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may direct."
10. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that the process of determining the compensation by the court is essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 17 of 33 (rpt) Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of injury and disability. (As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019)
11. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These general principles have been stated and reiterated in several decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
12. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must be "just" and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just. What would be "just" compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use of the expression "which appears to it to be just", a wide discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. ..."
13. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 18 of 33 (rpt) Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following observations:
"9....while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life." Further, Insurance Company in its RE, examined its Legal Manager Sh Sayok Bandyopadhyay as R2W1. Such witness R2W1 tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and relied upon various documents including DAR, copy of Insurance Policy, Verification Report dated 20.03.2020 issued by Reliance Gen. Ins. Co and copy of complaint dated 06.01.2021 given to DCP, Sarita Vihar. He was then cross examined by LAC for R1.
14. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Following observations are relevant in the context:
"40.General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. 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 MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 19 of 33 (rpt) some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item
(ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses--Item (iii)--depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages--Items (iv), (v) and (vi)--involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 20 of 33 (rpt) injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant."
15. The abovesaid principles have been placed reliance upon in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
16. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of judgments that "just compensation" should include all elements that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no amount of money or other material compensation can erase the trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the victims who have to face their lives.
17. Loss of Earning
(a) PW-1, the claimant/injured Sachin Mishra, deposed that at the time of the accident he was pursuing B.Tech from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and was also giving tuition to about 10-15 students studying from Class VI to XII in various subjects. He clarified that there was no fixed timing for giving tuition, though he used to teach six days a week. He further stated that he was charging Rs.500/- to Rs.2,000/- per month from each student and was earning about Rs.20,000/- per month in total. He also mentioned the names of two students, namely Anshul and Rishav, whom he claimed to be teaching. He further affirmed in MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 21 of 33 (rpt) his affidavit of evidence (Ex. PW1/A) that he was doing a private job and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. He admitted that he was not filing any Income Tax Return. He also admitted that he had not filed any documentary proof to show that he was pursuing B.Tech, nor had he placed on record any document, cash receipt, bank statement or other material to substantiate his alleged income. He further did not examine any of the guardians of the students to whom he claimed to be giving tuition. Since no documentary evidence regarding his educational qualification or income has been filed on record, there is no reliable basis to assess his income merely on the strength of his oral deposition. Accordingly, his income is assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to an unskilled workman in the State of Delhi, as he is a resident of Delhi as per his Aadhaar Card. The minimum wages prevalent at the time of accident were Rs.13,584/- per month.
(b) As per the Discharge Summary of AIIMS Hospital, the injured remained hospitalized from 15.02.2018 to 08.03.2018. He was treated for multiple grievous injuries, including a segmental fracture of the right femur, compound (Grade-II) fracture of the left femur, fractures of the transverse processes of L1 to L5 vertebrae, fractures of the spinous processes of L4, L5 and S1 lamina, as well as multiple rib fractures. Owing to the gravity of injuries, he underwent multiple operative procedures, including application of external fixator (knee-spanning), ORIF of the right femur with intramedullary interlocking nail (400 × 9.3 mm, Zimmer), ORIF of distal femur with AO Synthes LCP and screws, and fixation with two headless compression screws MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 22 of 33 (rpt) (HCS). The medical record further reflects that the injured remained under continuous medical supervision and follow-up for a period of about 4-5 months after discharge. Considering the nature of multiple fractures, surgical interventions and prolonged treatment, it can reasonably be presumed that the injured would have remained incapacitated and unable to perform any kind of work for a period of at least six months. (Further, since no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that the injuries caused any adverse or permanent impact on his education. Accordingly, no specific finding can be returned regarding loss or impairment of educational prospects).
(c) His income is thus calculated as Rs. 13,584/- x 6 = Rs. 81,504/-.
18. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : The Rs. 2,579/-
claimant asserted that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical treatment. However, the medical bills placed on record and exhibited as Ex. PW1/2 cumulatively amount to Rs.579/-. The summary of medical bills filed by learned counsel for the claimant also reflects the total medical expenditure as Rs.579/-. In the absence of supporting bills or vouchers, the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- cannot be accepted.
Nevertheless, considering the nature of grievous injuries sustained by the MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 23 of 33 (rpt) claimant, prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgical procedures and the likelihood of incurring incidental medical expenses such as medicines not billed, dressing material and follow-up care, a sum of Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards miscellaneous medical expenses. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.2,579/- is awarded to the claimant towards medical expenditure.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : PW-1 Rs. 20,000/- has stated in his affidavit of evidence that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance.
However, no documentary proof has been placed on record in support of the said claim. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant hospital visits, it can reasonably be presumed that he must have incurred conveyance expenses. Further, considering the severity of injuries, it is also evident that he would have required the assistance of a family member or attendant during such hospital visits. In these circumstances, a reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards conveyance charges.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : The Rs.20,000/- injured has stated that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.50,000/- towards special diet. However, no documentary evidence or medical advice prescribing a special diet has been placed on record.
Even so, keeping in view the nature and severity of multiple injuries sustained by the claimant, it is reasonable to presume that he would have required a nutritious and protein-rich diet to aid healing and recovery. In these circumstances, a MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 24 of 33 (rpt) reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : No Rs.25,000/- documentary evidence has been filed by the claimant to substantiate expenditure towards attendant charges during the period of hospitalization or subsequent treatment. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the course of treatment undergone, it can reasonably be inferred that he would have required the assistance of an attendant for his day-to-day activities, at least during the period of active treatment and recovery. It is well settled that an injured is entitled to compensation towards attendant charges even where such services are rendered by family members without monetary payment. Accordingly, a reasonable sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the claimant towards attendant charges.
(v) Loss of income : As discussed and Rs.81,504/-. calculated above:
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) shock as well as pain suffering : In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the injured, including multiple fractures of both femurs, vertebrae, and ribs, which required repeated surgical interventions, prolonged hospitalization, and extended follow-up treatment, it is evident that he must have undergone severe physical MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 25 of 33 (rpt) pain, mental trauma, and considerable suffering for a substantial period. The seriousness of the injuries and invasive procedures would have significantly affected his mobility and day-to-day life. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh) is awarded towards pain, suffering, as well as mental and physical shock.
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.10,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 2,59,083/-
19. Interest:
(a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
20. Liability:-
(a) Counsel for R-2 / Insurance Company has contended that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid and MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 26 of 33 (rpt) effective driving licence and that the driver of the offending vehicle was also in an inebriated condition, which fact, according to her, stands substantiated from the investigation. It is argued that the driver was consequently charge-sheeted under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a vehicle without a valid driving licence and under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving under the influence of alcohol. It is further contended that since the driver himself was also the owner of the offending vehicle, there is a clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. On the strength of the charge-sheet, it is argued that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in Indraprastha Logistics (supra) to seek recovery rights on the ground of alleged drunken driving.
(b) Per contra, the driver of the offending vehicle entered the witness box as R1W1 and produced his driving licence, which has been exhibited as Ex. R1W1/2. The particulars of the said driving licence reveal that it was valid and effective for driving the class of vehicle involved in the accident. Counsel for the insurance company objected to the said driving licence on the ground that it is a procured document, allegedly prepared on false particulars at a belated stage of investigation only to escape liability. It was further argued that the driver did not possess any valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Doubt was also raised on the ground that the driving licence had been issued by the Transport Authority of Manipur, whereas the driver admittedly belongs to Uttar Pradesh and was allegedly residing in Faridabad at the time of the accident.
MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 27 of 33 (rpt)
(c) During cross-examination, several questions were put to R1W1 arising out of the suspicion regarding the authenticity of the driving licence. The witness / driver Hari Om stated that he had stayed in Manipur for about seven months, though he could not specify the exact period or address. He admitted that he had not brought any documentary proof to show his residence in Manipur. He further stated that he had gone to Manipur in the year 2015, but could not recall the exact date and the name of train. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited Manipur or that Ex. R1W1/2 is a forged, fabricated or procured document.
He also stated that the Investigating Officer never asked him to produce his driving licence. He specifically denied that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and clarified that the driving licence was issued in the year 2016.
(d) The insurance company, during arguments, vaguely submitted that it could not get the driving licence verified through its own investigator due to alleged security issues in Manipur. Perusal of the record shows that a verification report was called by the police authorities from the Transport Department, Manipur, and the same has been placed on record. The said verification report unequivocally authenticates the driving licence in question, mentioning its date of issue as 14.04.2016 and validity up to 17.02.2035 for the relevant category of vehicle. The report also reflects the address of the driver as Khergao Awang Leikai, Imphal East, Manipur.
(e) It is pertinent to note that there is no statutory bar under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prohibits a person from obtaining a driving licence from a State other than his native MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 28 of 33 (rpt) State or permanent place of residence, provided the licence is issued by a competent licensing authority. Mere suspicion regarding the place of issuance of a driving licence, in the absence of any concrete evidence of forgery or fabrication, cannot be a ground to disbelieve a public document duly verified by a government authority. The insurance company has neither summoned any official from the Transport Department of Manipur nor led any independent evidence to rebut the verification report or to establish that the driving licence is fake or invalid.
(f) Once the driving licence has been verified and authenticated by the concerned Transport Authority, the burden squarely lay upon the insurance company to prove the alleged breach of policy conditions, which it has failed to discharge. Bald allegations, conjectures and doubts cannot take the place of proof.
(g) In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal finds no material on record to discredit or disbelieve the driving licence Ex. R1W1/2. Accordingly, the driving licence of the driver is held to be valid and effective on the date of the accident, and the plea of the insurance company that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence is hereby rejected.
(h) Another plea raised by the insurance company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident and, on that basis, he was charge- sheeted under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving in an inebriated condition.
(i) As per the charge-sheet, the police authorities are stated to MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 29 of 33 (rpt) have recovered one whisky bottle of the brand "Signature" from the co-driver seat of the offending vehicle. The MLC of the driver, Hari Om, also records the remark "smell of alcohol", which appears to have formed the basis for invoking the said penal provision. However, it is important to note that beyond these observations, no scientific or medical evidence has been brought on record to establish that the driver had consumed alcohol beyond the permissible limit prescribed under law. Despite repeated directions, no FSL report or blood alcohol analysis has been filed by the investigating agency to indicate the actual alcohol content in the driver's blood at the relevant time. The distinction is material. Mere presence of a liquor bottle in the vehicle or a general observation of "smell of alcohol" in the MLC, by itself, does not conclusively establish the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, unless it is supported by evidence showing that the alcohol level exceeded the statutory limit.
(j) The judgments relied upon by the insurance company, as already discussed, proceed on the footing of a clearly established breach of permissible alcohol limits, supported by cogent medical or scientific evidence. In the present case, such foundational evidence is conspicuously absent. The record contains no material, except the MLC noting "smell of alcohol", which falls short of the legal requirement to prove intoxication in terms of Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(k) In these circumstances, the plea raised by the insurance company rests more on assumption than proof. In the absence of any reliable and documented evidence demonstrating that the MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 30 of 33 (rpt) driver was driving under the influence of alcohol beyond the permissible limit, this contention cannot be accepted and is, accordingly, rejected.
(l) Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective Insurance Policy on the date of accident. It has already been held that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, in case the matter adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the date of concerned order till revival of the case, shall not be awarded. Further, if any auction proceeds is received, same be adjusted in the final award amount).
21. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station, name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited. The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the account titled "MACT FUND PARKING", Account No. 00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 31 of 33 (rpt) 110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
22. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Since the amount is not huge, whole compensation amount along with interest shall be released in her bank account.
23. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon'ble High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
24. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount, directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
25. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 13/14.02.2019 (midnight) MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 32 of 33 (rpt) 2 Name of injured Sachin 3 Age of the injured 23 years 4 Occupation of the Not proved injured 5 Income of the injured Minimum wages for unskilled person.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury 7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization 9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury disability?
26. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Concerned Criminal Court. Digitally signed by ADITI ADITI GARG Date:
(Pronounced in the open court on 20.12.2025) GARG 2025.12.20 17:12:01 +0530 (Aditi Garg) PO-MACT-01 (South-East) Saket Court/ New Delhi 20.12.2025 MACT No. 449/18 Sachin Vs. Hari Om & Anr. Page No. 33 of 33 (rpt)