Delhi District Court
Mohit Kumar ... vs Mohd. Daud (Tata Aig ) on 14 May, 2025
DLCT010169762023
Presented on : 01-12-2023
Registered on : 01-12-2023
Decided on : 14-05-2025
Duration : 01 Year 05
Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO. 1023/23
MOHIT KUMAR
S/o Sh. Dhiraj Singh
R/o H.No. 45, Gali No. 12,
Wazirabad Village,
Delhi-110084. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. MOHD. DAUD
S/o Mohd. Mani Ruddin Miyan
R/o H.No. A-547,
SirsKh No. 12/1 of 12/1/13/6/1,
Left Portion, Ground Floor,
Main Road 5, Village Jagatpur,
Delhi. (Driver)
2. R.K.CROCKERY RENTAL Co.
H.No. A-547,
SirsKh No. 12/1 of 12/1/13/6/1,
Left Portion, Ground Floor,
Main Road 5, Village Jagatpur,
Delhi (Owner)
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 1/29
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14
12:35:09 +0530
3. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
22, 2nd Floor, Coomunity Centre,
Block-A, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi. (Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh. M.Awasthi)
.....Respondents
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 14/10/23
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A. (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A. Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A. from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 01/12/23 Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not by the Insurance Company mentioned
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No the part of the Designated officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/ direction warranted?
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 2/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.14
12:35:16 +0530
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A.
of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 14/05/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 01/12/23 directed to open savings bank account(s) near his place of residence and produce PAN Card and Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A. passbook of their savings bank account near the place of their residence along with the endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No. 45, Claimant(s). Gali No. 12, Wazirabad Village, Delhi-
110084
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank N.A. account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the N.A. time of passing of the award to ascertain his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 01/12/2023 by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is related to a motor vehicular accident dated 14/10/2023 in which MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 3/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.14 12:35:21 +0530 one Sh. Mohit Kumar S/o Sh. Dhiraj Singh (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. As per petitioner, on 14/10/2023 at about 11.30 A.M, he was going to GTB Nagar from Wazirabad on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SAC-6208 which was being driven by him at a normal speed and on correct side of the road and when he reached Sangam Vihar, Gol Chakkar Gurjar Chow within the jurisdiction of PS Wazirabad, Delhi in the meantime a Tempo bearing registration number DL-1LAH-7649 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver, at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from back side and hit his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SAC-6208 with a great force. It is further stated that as result of this he fell down on the road alongwith motorcycle and front wheel of the right side of Eicher Tempo ran over his left leg due to which he sustained grievous/ crushed injury i.e. degloving/ crush injury foot and other multiple injuries and he was immediately taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi where first was givent to him and thereafter he was taken to Sant Parmanad Hospital, Civil Lines, Delhi where his MLC No. 5110/SPHC/2023 was prepared by the doctor where he hospitalized from 14/10/2023 to 29/10/2023 where his surgery were conducted and thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 02/11/2023 to 03/11/2023 and thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 10/11/2023 to 10/11/2023 and MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 4/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:35:28 +0530 thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 17/11/2023 to 18/11/2023 and thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 25/12/2023 to 27/12/2023. It is further stated that the said accident took place due to the sole negligence and carelessness of the R-. It is further stated that he has spent Rs.20,00,000/- on his medical treatment, Rs. 3,00,000/- on conveyance, Rs.2,50,000/- on special diet and Rs.3,50,000/- on attendant. It is further stated that he has received 50% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb and this 50% disability renders him as 100% disable person for various jobs and day to day activities of life. He seeks compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident. It is further stated that at the time of accident he was 30 years of age and was working as Certified Internet Consultant (Sale) with Just Dial Ltd. Pioneer House, Noida and was earning Rs.28,000/- per month. An FIR no. 976/23 U/s 279/338 IPC PS Wazirabad was registered by the police with respect to above accident. R-1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle. R-2 is stated to be the owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR was treated as a claim petition. R-3/insurance company was directed to file a legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said DAR. R-1 and R-2 were also directed to file their Written Statements.
2. A joint written statement was filed by R-1 & R-2 in which they declined the contents of the DAR/petition. However, MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 5/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.14 12:35:32 +0530 they further averred that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by R-3/ insurance company in favour of R-2 and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be discharged by R-3/ Insurance Company only.
3. R-3/ Insurance Company filed a legal offer, however, same was not accepted by the petitioner.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 09/07/2024 the following issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
1.Whether the petitioner Mohit Kumar suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 14.10.2023 at about 11.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAH-7649 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent No.3?OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at the relevant time, he was 30 years of age and was working as Certified Internet Consultant (Sale) with Just Dial Ltd and was earning Rs.28,000/- per month. and due to injuries he has not MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 6/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.14 12:35:37 +0530 been able to do his worked till date due to the said accident and he has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 50% with respect to his left lower limb. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents viz:-
"Medical treatment records of PW-1 are Ex. PW-1/1 (colly);
Medical treatment bills of PW-1 are Ex. PW-1/2 (colly);
Disability certificate is Ex. PW-1/3; Copy of educational certificates of PW-1 are Ex. PW-1/4(colly);
Copy of Duty Identity card of PW-1 is Ex. PW-1/5;
Copy of DL of PW-1 is Ex. PW-1/6;
Copy of PAN Card of PW-1 is Ex. PW-1/7;
Copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-1 is Ex.
PW-1/8; and
Complete set of DAR is Ex. PW-1/9(colly).'' 5.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents. In his cross-examination he deposed that she is holding a valid driving license which is Ex. PW-1/6. She further deposed that the offending vehicle hit his from behind.
5.2 Petitioner further examined one Sh. Rajan Mishra, S/o Sh. Sunil Mishra, Team Leader, Sant Parmanand Hospital, 18, Sham Nath Marg, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054 as PW-2. She deposed that she is summoned witness. She further deposed that she has been duly authorised to bring the summoned record. She MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 7/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:35:42 +0530 relied upon her authority letter which vide Ex. PW-2/1. She also relied upon the summoned record pertaining to the medical treatment of Sh. Mohit Kumar in their Hospital. She also proved the final bill dated 30.10.2023 vide Ex. PW-2/2(colly) which shows that the petitioner has paid Rs.77,042/- towards his medical treatment and the remaining amount has been paid by Universal Sampo Gen. Ins. Co. PW-2 was not cross-examined.
5.3 Petitioner further examined one Ms. Shikha Goyal, D/o Late Sh. Rajesh Goyal, Dy.Manager, MAX Heathcare Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi as PW-3. She deposed that she is summoned witness and she has been duly authorised to bring the summoned record. She relied upon her authority letter which vide Ex. PW-3/1. She also proved the summoned record pertaining to the medical treatment of Sh. Mohit Kumar in their Hospital. She also proved the final bills pertaining to three admissions on 02.11.2023(discharged on 03.11.2023), 10.11.2023 (discharged on 10.11.2023) and 17.11.2023(discharged on 18.11.2023) and same vide Ex. PW-3/2(colly) to Ex. PW-3/4(colly) respectively which shows that the petitioner has paid Rs.12,883/-, Rs.8,292/- and Rs.49,870/- towards his medical treatment and the remaining amount has been paid by Universal Sampo Gen. Ins. Co. PW-3 was cross-examined Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/Insurance Company. In her cross-examination she deposed that she does not have any personal knowledge.
5.4 Petitioner further examined one Ms. Leena D/o Sh. Kuldeep Kumar, Dy Manager, HR Department, Justdial Ltd.MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 8/29 Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:35:49 +0530 A-45/50 Sector-16, Pioneer House, Noida, UP-201301 as PW-4. She deposed that she is summoned witness. She proved the service record of Mohit Kumar who was working as Certified Internet Consultant (Filed Sales Executive) and drawing salary of Rs. 3,36,000/- per annum ( Rs. 28,000/- per month at the time of accident). She proved the print out of appointment letter and salary slips for the August to October, 2023 of Mohit Kumar vide Ex. PW-4/1 and Ex. PW-4/2 (Colly). She further deposed that after the accident no salary was paid to him and he had not claimed against Group Accidental Policy. PW-4 was cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In her cross-examination she deposed that her nature of job is to maintain record with regard to the employment of the employees. She denied the suggestion that the petitioner continued his service even after the date of accident and he left his job in the month of December, 2024.
5.5 PE was then closed.
6. Respondent did not lead any evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise findings is as under:-
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 9/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:35:57 +0530 ISSUE NO.1 "Whether the petitioner Mohit Kumar
suffered injuries in an accident that took place on 14.10.2023 at about 11.30 AM involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAH-7649 driven by the Respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent No.3?OPP''
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 10/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:03 +0530 categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, he was going to GTB Nagar from Wazirabad on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SAC-6208 which was being driven by him at a normal speed and on correct side of the road and when he reached Sangam Vihar, Gol Chakkar Gurjar Chow within the jurisdiction of PS Wazirabad, Delhi in the meantime a Tempo bearing registration number DL-1LAH-7649 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver, at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic rules and without blowing any horn came from back side and hit his motorcycle bearing registration no.
DL-1SAC-6208 with a great force. It is further stated that as result of this he fell down on the road alongwith motorcycle and front wheel of the right side of Eicher Tempo ran over his left leg due to which he sustained grievous/ crushed injury i.e. degloving/ crush injury foot and other multiple injuries and he was immediately taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi where first was givent to him and thereafter he was taken to Sant Parmanad Hospital, Civil Lines, Delhi where his MLC No. 5110/SPHC/2023 was prepared by the doctor where he hospitalized from 14/10/2023 to 29/10/2023 where his surgery were conducted and thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 02/11/2023 to 03/11/2023 and thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 10/11/2023 to 10/11/2023 and thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 17/11/2023 to 18/11/2023 and MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 11/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:07 +0530 thereafter he was taken to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where he hospitalized on 25/12/2023 to 27/12/2023. It is further stated that the said accident took place due to the sole negligence and carelessness of the R-. It is further stated that he has spent Rs.2000,000/- on his medical treatment, Rs. 3,00,000/- on conveyance, Rs.2,50,000/- on special diet and Rs.3,50,000/- on attendant. It is further stated that he has received 50% permanent disability in relation to left lower limb and this 50% disability renders him as 100% disable person for various jobs and day to day activities of life. He seeks compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him the vehicular accident. It is further stated that at the time of accident he was 30 years of age and was working as Certified Internet Consultant (Sale) with Just Dial Ltd. Pioneer House, Noida and was earning Rs.28,000/- per month. He further deposed that he suffered 50% permanent physical disability with respect to his left lower limb and he has became unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for respondents. However, he remained consistent and seems to have withstood the test of cross-examination. There is nothing on record which betrays any falsity or untruth in the oral MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 12/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.14 12:36:12 +0530 testimony of PW-1. As such, it could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable and trustworthy.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, medical papers, Seizure Memos and Arrest Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW1.
12. Besides the above, R-1 himself was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
13. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle a in rash and negligent manner in a high speed at the relevant time.
In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 13/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:17 +0530 driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
14. In view of the disability certificate, medical treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2"Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 14/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.14 12:36:21 +0530 tribunal is required to be 'just'. In the injury cases a claimant is entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. The "pecuniary damages" or special damages are those damages which are awarded and designed to make good the losses which are capable of being calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The "non-pecuniary" or general damages are those damages which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/ attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non- pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same place or position where he could have been if the alleged accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the 'just' compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 15/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.14 12:36:27 +0530 objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Reference in this regard can be made on some of important judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755, Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which can be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. The petitioner has placed on judicial file the treatment records and original medical bills vide Ex. PW-1/1(colly), and Ex.PW-1/2 (colly). As per the said documents, petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of Rs.3,35,892/-. In the absence of any contest to the said documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner is held entitled to an amount of Rs.3,35,892/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the petitioner has MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 16/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:32 +0530 suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 50% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb. As per disability certificate no. 2032 dated 28.09.2024 issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of ''FUC Of injury (Lt) Foot'' and was found to have sustained 50% permanent physical impairment in relation to left lower limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. The aforementioned certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal vide order dated 13/08/2024. Accordingly, the aforementioned disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order 16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of income
21. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims that he was 30 years of age and was working as Certified MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 17/29 Digitally signed PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:38 +0530 Internet Consultant (Sale) with Just Dial Ltd. Pioneer House, Noida and was earning Rs.28,000/- per month. In order to prove the income of the petitioner, the petitioner examined one Ms. Leena as PW-4. She proved the salary slips of petitioner vide Ex.PW-4/2 (Colly). As per salary slip of the petitioner for the month of September, 2023, the salary is Rs.28,000/-. Accordingly, same is considered for the purpose of computation of compensation. The medical records placed on record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a grievous injuries which resulted into 50% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve in future. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation since the date of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner has become unfit for work for rest of his life after the accident and he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the injuries. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs. 28,000/- X 6). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
22. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could not perform his work by resuming his duties. As per disability certificate Ex. PW-1/3, petitioner has suffered 50% permanent physical impairment with respect to left lower limb which is not progressive and not likely to improve in future. Since the MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 18/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:43 +0530 petitioner was doing a job and in such circumstances, permanent disability pertaining to his left lower limb would decrease his functional capacity to a greater extent thereby harming his employment prospects and future. The shortening of leg and requirement of an attendant all the time have diminished his job prosects. Accordingly, the functional disability of petitioner is taken as 50%. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs.28,000/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look into the photocopy of petitioner's Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-1/8, as per the said document, the year of birth of petitioner was 1993. The date of accident is 14/10/2023. Going by the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was around 30 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '17' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is also entitled to 50% future prospects as per the observations made by a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020 [please see para 7 (b)]. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent locomotor disability comes to Rs.42,84,000/-
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 19/29 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:49 +0530 (Rs.28,000/- X 150/100 X 50/100 X 12 X 17 ) and the same is awarded to him as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
23. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
24. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
(vii) Loss of Marriage Prospects
25. Admittedly, petitioner had to undergo a lot of trauma and pain on account of the above accident He also suffered a permanent physical impairment to the extent of 50% in relation to his left lower limb. Further, petitioner cannot walk as he requires the help of an attendant and special shoes while moving from one place to other owing to disability. He cannot walk properly as he has become lame. His job prospects have also finished. This Tribunal could not turn a blind eye to the fact that the above disability is very much likely to affect the marriage prospects of the petitioner, given the existing social norms of our society at large. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries suffered by him which had impacted his future marriage prospects to a greater extent, petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 20/29 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:36:54 +0530 5,00,000/- under this head as well.
(viii) Future Attendant , Conveyance & Medical Treatment
26. The facts show that physical condition of the petitioner is such that his left leg has shortened for which he has to use special shoe and he has to take the help of an attendant for movement. Further, he would be requiring conveyance for movement in future too. His job prospects have been hit as he has become almost unemployable. He has to use an attendant in future also for his living. Therefore, considering the same a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded towards his cost of special shoes, future attendant, conveyance and medical treatment.
Issue No.3/Relief
27. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.61,37,892/- (Rupees Sixty One Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Two Only) (Rs.3,35,892/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.1,68,000/- + Rs.42,84,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- ) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 01/12/2023. Since no interim compensation has been awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
28. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs and requirements.
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 21/29 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:37:03 +0530 28.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) and the said amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 300 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 300 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when she furnishes the details of his bank account which is near the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.9,20,473/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Three Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner.
29. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 22/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:37:09 +0530 FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
30. As already stated above, R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2 being owner of the offending vehicle, and also being vicariously liable for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with R-3 at the time of accident, therefore, R-3/ Insurance Company is liable to indemnify R-2 in respect of above liability. As such R-3 is directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder's name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726) under intimation to the petitioners and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as awarded, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 23/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:37:14 +0530 annum for the period of delay.
31. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
32. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
33. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 24/29 Digitally signedPANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:37:18 +0530 File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put Digitally signed up the same on 01.07.2025. PANKAJ by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:37:26 +0530 Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA) on this 14.05.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL) DELHI FORM - XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 13/04/2023
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Mohit Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 30 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Certified Internet Consultant Job
5. Income of the injured : Rs, 28,000/- as per salary slip at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by injured : Differnt Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details : YES MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 25/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.14 12:37:31 +0530
10.
Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.3,35,892/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 50,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.1,68,000/-
(viii) Any other loss which may Rs.5,00,000/- (Cost of require any special special shoes, attendant, treatment or aid to the conveyance and medical injured for the rest of his treatment in future) life MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 26/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:37:37 +0530
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability 50% w.r.t. left lower limb assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 27/29 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.05.14 12:37:43 +0530
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A expectation of life span on account of disability 50%
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - Rs.42,84,000/-
(Income x % Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.61,37,892/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.7,82,581/-(rounded off) date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.69,20,473/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.9,20,473/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award FDRs MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 28/29 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14 12:37:49 +0530
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award the award amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 01.07.2025 the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 14.05.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with directions to put up the same on 01.07.2025.Digitally signed by PANKAJ SHARMA
PANKAJ Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.14
12:37:55
+0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/14/05/2025
MACT No. 1023/23 Mohit Kumar Vs. Mohd. Daud & Ors. Page No. 29/29
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.14
12:37:59 +0530