Delhi District Court
Mohit vs Vishal on 11 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 237/2023
CNR No.DLWT010027362023
Sh. Mohit
S/o Sh. Ram Lal
R/o House no. 3615/98, 2nd floor
B Block, Gali no. 98/4,
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi .
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Vishal Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Vipin Bhagat
R/o H. No. 62, Bharolla Village,
New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur,
Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi
2. Vipin Bhagat (Owner)
S/o Sh. Suresh Bhagat
R/o H. No. 62, Bharolla Village,
New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur,
Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi
3. ICICI Lombard General (Insurer)
Insurance Company Limited
Pritampura, Delhi
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.1 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:35 +0530
Date of Institution : 25.03.2023
Date of reserving order/judgment : 30.01.2026
Date of pronouncement : 11.02.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 10.03.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 25.03.2023
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 01.06.2024
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 01.06.2024
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 01.06.2024
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 01.06.2024
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 01.06.2024
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 01.06.2024
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay FAR was filed after a delay
or deficiency on the part of of around 15 days.
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 12.09.2024
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.2 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:02:38 +0530
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the the present matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 11.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 01.06.2024
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar 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) 02.12.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Shop no. 634, Gali no. 22,
Address of the claimant(s). Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.3 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:40 +0530
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
1.1 The present DAR was filed on 01.06.2024 by
Investigating Officer (IO) in the presence of the parties.
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated
10.03.2023 which occurred at about 02:15 pm near Punjabi Bagh
Flyover, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
Punjabi Bagh in which Sh. Mohit S/o Sh. Ram Lal (hereinafter
referred as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. FIR
No.143/2023 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered at PS
Punjabi Bagh.
1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the
injured Mohit has suffered grievous injuries in the road accident
due to rash and negligent driving, of Grey Honda Activa bearing
registration no. DL6SBC8963 (hereinafter referred as "offending
vehicle"), by respondent no.1. As per the documents annexed, on
10.03.2023, the petitioner was going to his office after collecting blood sample from Model Town, Delhi. At around 2:15 PM, when he reached at Punjabi Bagh flyover, New Delhi, the offending vehicle which was being driven by the respondent no.1 rashly and negligently came from behind from the right side of the petitioner and hit him on the right side, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries. The respondent no. 1 took the petitioner to Parmari Hospital, Azadpur, Delhi and fled from there. The petitioner called at 112 and the PCR arrived which Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.4 of 34
Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA
GUNJAN GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:02:42 +0530
took him to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital where the petitioner was given treatment. He was medically examined vide MLC No. 223756 dated 10.03.2023. In the final report annexed with the DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s 279/338 of IPC.
1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver, the respondent no.02 as owner and respondent no.03 as the insurer of offending vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS 2.1 No written statement was filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 despite opportunity given and their opportunity to file the written statement was closed vide order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal. 2.2 Respondent no.03 filed the reply inter alia stating that as per the charge sheet, when the Investigating Officer on receiving DD NO. 88A dated 10.03.2023, proceeded to the place of incident, he could not find the petitioner. It is stated that the IO could not find him even at Parmari Hospital, Azadpur, Delhi and later on, on the information of complainant Mohit, the IO collected the MLC from Babu Jagjivan Ram Hosptial, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and also recorded the statement of petitioner at his house. It is stated that contrary to this, as per the statement of the petitioner, the driver of the offending vehicle dropped him at the Parmari hospital whereafter he was shifted to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital by the PCR. It is further stated that though the respondent no. 1 has been stated to have been arrested, the charge sheet has been filed against respondent no. 2. It is further stated that there is a delay in registration of the FIR by the police, the Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.5 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:44 +0530
delay in seizure of the offending vehicle and further delay in the arrest of the driver and it appears that the driver has been implanted by the police in collusion with respondent no. 1 & 2. It is stated that the alleged offending Vehicle bearing registration no. DL 6SBC 8963 was insured with it vide policy No. 3005/181980677/00/000 valid for the period from 01.10.2019 to 30.09.2024.
ISSUES
3. After completion of pleadings, on 08.10.2024, the Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: -
1. Whether the injured Mohit sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 10.03.2023 at about 02:15 pm at near Punjabi Bagh flyover, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL6SBC8963 being driven by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE 4.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 to establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1(OSR), Medical documents/bills/invoices as mark PW1/2; Photocopy of his salary slip Ex.PW1/3 and Complete set of DAR/criminal documents Ex.PW1/4 (colly) in his evidence.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.6 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:48 +0530
He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged. 4.2 No other witnesses were examined by petitioner. RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE 5.1 No evidence was led by respondent no.1 & 2. Vide order dt. 25.09.2025, the right of respondent no. 1 & 2 to lead evidence was closed on account of their non-appearance. 5.2 Respondent no.3 examined R3W1 Ms. Diksha Manhas, Legal Manager as R3W1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. She relied upon copy of Power of Attorney in her favour as Ex.R3W1/1(colly), attested copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/2(colly), notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/3 and four postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/4 in her evidence. She was examined, cross-examined and discharged.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER 6.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has proved that the incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the expenses of the medical treatment of the injured and also the proof of income of the injured. It is submitted that keeping in view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of petitioner.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT'S NO. 1 & 2 6.2 No arguments were advanced by respondent no. 1 &
2. ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.7 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:50 +0530
6.3 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent
no.3 that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. It was argued that as per the driving license of the respondent no. 1 on record, the validity of the license is from 08.08.2023 onwards whereas the accident occurred on 10.03.2023. It was further argued that the date of occurrence of the accident is after 01.04.2022 and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner as after amendment of the Motor Vehicular Act, 1988 the right of the insurance company to pay and recover has been done away with.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES ISSUE NO.(1) Whether the injured Mohit sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 10.03.2023 at about 02:15 pm at near Punjabi Bagh flyover, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL6SBC8963 being driven by respondent no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2 and insured with the respondent no.3? OPP.
7.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.8 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:02:52
+0530
in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of "Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors." (2009) 13 SC 530, "Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Ors." 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and "Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.", 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc. 7.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for the parties.
7.3 The petitioner has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 10.03.2023, at around 2.15 PM, when he was at Punjabi Bagh flyover, Delhi, he was hit by the driver of a scooty from his right side, which came from behind at a very high speed and driven rashly and negligently. He has deposed that due to this, he fell down and sustained injuries. He has categorically deposed that the scooty was of Grey colour Honda Activa bearing registration No. DL-6SBC-8963. He further deposed that he was taken to Parmari Hospital, Azadpur, Delhi by the respondent no. 1 and after that respondent no.1 ran away from there. Thereafter, he called at 112 and the PCR took him to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital for treatment where he was medically examined. He deposed that thereafter he took his treatment from a private hospital and could not record his statement as he was in shock and complete bed rest for 4 months. He further deposed Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.9 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:54 +0530
that the accident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.01. He deposed that the FIR No. 0143/2023 was registered on his statement on 24.03.2023 against respondent no. 1 & 2. The petitioner in his evidence has relied upon his medical documents/bills/invoices mark PW1/2 and complete set of DAR Ex.PW1/4 (colly) amongst other documents. The petitioner had filed the original treatment record of the petitioner including some of the documents marked as Mark PW1/2, on 04.12.2025. On 17.01.2026, the counsel for respondent no. 3 gave his no objection to the filing of the original documents of the petitioner and stated that he does not want to lead any further evidence to rebut the same. 7.4 Nothing favourable to the respondents came on record during the cross-examination of the petitioner and documents relied upon by him remained unrebutted during his cross-examination. No cross-examination whatsoever was done on the aspect of rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 in driving the offending vehicle.
7.5 Further, the very fact that respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC with respect to the accident in question/FIR No.143/2023 is in itself a strong circumstance to support the testimony of PW-1 and sufficiently proves the complicity of the respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. The copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, MLC, site plan, seizure memos of the vehicles, statements recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC, notices issued U/s 133 of M.V. Act and their reply, also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.10 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:57 +0530
7.6 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the
best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and could have thrown some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident in question took place. However, respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to step into the witness box during the course of inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving.
7.7 Respondent no.3 has not led any evidence in support of its contentions in its WS except on the aspect of driving licence of respondent no.1. Even the IO and the respondent no.1 & 2 have not been examined by the insurance company. Also, during arguments, the aspect of false implication was not pressed. As regards, the contention in the WS, regarding delayed arrest of respondent no.1, the same has been explained by the IO and recorded in order dated 17.01.2026 and his explanation is corroborated by documents on record. It is clear from the record that initially in reply to notice u/s 133 of MV Act, the respondent no.2 had stated that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident and when he was not identified in TIP proceedings by the injured, a second notice u/s 133 MV Act was issued to him, in reply to which he admitted that he had made a wrong statement earlier to save his son (respondent no.1) and his son was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. Thereafter, TIP of respondent no.1 was conducted whereupon he was identified and later arrested.
7.8 As far as the delay in registration of the FIR is Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.11 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:59 +0530
concerned, it has been stated by the petitioner in his evidence that due to the shock and due to he being on complete bed rest for 4 months, he was not able to give his statement. The said part of the testimony has remained unrebutted in cross-examination. The incident happened on 10.03.2023 and the FIR was registered on 24.03.2023. The petitioner who had suffered grievous injuries i.e. fractures in the ribs and Clavical and who must have been in severe pain cannot be expected to first take care of the legal aspects. The petitioner has been discharged on 18.03.2023 and as per the medical records of ESI Hospital, Rohini was advised strict bed rest. Further, in the charge sheet filed by the IO, it has been clearly mentioned that the information regarding the accident was received through DD No. 88-A, however, the spot of accident was not found and even the injured was not found at Parmari Hospital and, therefore, the report was kept pending and the FIR was registered on the complaint of the petitioner being received on 24.03.2023 and upon procuring the copy of MLC from Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 7.9 Perusal of record shows that MLC bearing No. 223756 dated 10.03.2023 of the injured was prepared in Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Delhi on the same date i.e. 10.03.2023 with alleged history of RTA.
7.10 In view of the above discussions, the delay in registration of FIR cannot be imputed upon the petitioner, who on account of his injuries was initially unable to pursue the matter with the police and thereafter, got the FIR registered after telephonically informing the police. There is sufficient material available on record, as discussed hereinbefore, which proves the Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.12 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:02 +0530
involvement of the offending vehicle and its driver in the accident in question. Hence, the delay in registration of FIR on the part of police does not become fatal to the case of the petitioner.
7.11 In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on 10.03.2023 at about 2:15 pm near Punjabi Bagh Flyover, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL6SBC8962 being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
8.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road accident. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in "Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors." (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was held : -
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('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 tribunal shall have to assess the Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.13 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:04 +0530
damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent 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. 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 injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.14 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:07 +0530
8.2 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. In light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:
MEDICAL EXPENSES 8.3(i) The petitioner has filed medical documents/ bills/ invoices as Mark PW1/2 (colly) on record which include the bills for treatment during hospitalization. On 04.12.2025, the petitioner further filed the original medical treatment record of the petitioner including the original final bill dated 18.03.2023 of Nulife Hospital, copy of which was filed as a part of Mark PW1/2. On 17.01.2026, the counsel for respondent no. 3 gave his no objection to the filing of the original medical documents of the petitioner and stated that he does not want to lead any further evidence to rebut the same. Thus, the original medical treatment bills filed by the petitioner stood admitted by the respondent no.
3. 8.3(ii) The total expenses incurred by the petitioner on his treatment, as per the original bills filed on record is Rs.91,157/-.
Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 91,157/- on Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.15 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:09 +0530
account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is
awarded Rs. 91,157/- on account of medical expenses. ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT 8.4 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING TREATMENT PERIOD 8.5(i) The petitioner has placed on record his salary slip for the month of February, 2023 as Ex.PW1/3. As per salary slip Ex.PW1/3, the petitioner was a Runner with Expedient Healthcare Marketing Pvt. Limited and his total earnings were Rs.14,453/-. As per the FIR, the petitioner was on the date of the accident, going to his office after collecting the blood samples from Model Town. The same is a skillful job. As per the minimum wages chart in the State of NCT of Delhi, the minimum wages of a skilled person on the date of accident i.e. 10.03.2023 was Rs.20,357/-. Thus, the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident were more than the income of the petitioner as can be ascertained from the salary slip for the month of February, 2023. In the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ltd. vs. Mohd. Naushad Alam & Ors." MAC. APP No.558/2018, CM APPL. 24479/2018, it was held that no person can be paid less than the minimum wages.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.16 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:11 +0530
8.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured
needs to be considered as Rs.20,357/- per month on the date of accident.
8.5(iii) As per the medical documents available on record, the petitioner was hospitalized for 06 days and had suffered "Right Clavical Fracture, fracture right sided ribs 3 rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and wedging compression of D8 vertebral body". The petitioner had also taken further treatment till 30.06.2023. Also, perusal of the original treatment record of ESI Hospital, Rohini filed by the petitioner on 04.12.2025 shows that the petitioner has been advised bed rest uptil 30.06.2023 and on 30.06.2023, he was declared fit to join duty.
8.5(iv) Considering the nature of injuries, the period of treatment and further considering that the petitioner would have required sometime to join back his duties or to find some suitable work for earning his livelihood, this tribunal is of the opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work for about 06 months. Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of sum of Rs.1,22,142/- (Rs.20,357/- x 6) towards loss of income during treatment period.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS 8.6 Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain & suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken into account including victim's age, nature of injury, parts of body where injuries occurred, surgeries, if any, duration of hospitalization and treatment, the unusual deprivation suffered by Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.17 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:14 +0530
victim and effect thereof on his future life. As per the medical documents of injured on record, the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries and fractures in his ribs and Clavical. The petitioner has also remained hospitalized for a few days. He was advised strict bed rest. As per prescription dated 13.06.2023 of the ESI Hospital, Rohini, it was only after 3 months (approx) that he was allowed to sit. Thus, clearly, the petitioner must have suffered acute pain & suffering during the treatment as well as post treatment during the time of recovery. In view of the same and considering the nature of the injury, the period of hospitalization and the future follow-up treatment and the suffering and the trauma undergone by him, the petitioner is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
SPECIAL DIET 8.7 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the judgment. Thus, considering the same and further considering that the petitioner must have required a long time to recover from the injuries and would have required a protean rich diet, this Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet. ATTENDANT CHARGES 8.8 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by petitioner which have already been discussed in the foregoing part of the award, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required the assistance of some attendant during the period of hospitalization and recovery, may be that of his family members. It is a settled law that for grant of compensation for attendant charges, Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.18 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:16
+0530
the necessity of employment of the attendant is not required and the petitioner is required to be compensated even for value of services of his family members. (refer: DTC & Ors. vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ
253). Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards attendant charges. CONVEYANCE CHARGES 8.9 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and future follow up treatment taken by him, this Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on conveyance.
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.91,157/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.1,22,142/-
treatment period
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
5. Special Diet Rs.60,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.60,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.5,33,299/-
9. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.5,33,299/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only).
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.19 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:19
+0530
LIABILITY
10.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance
Company that driver/respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of incident. The respondent no.3 has examined Ms. Diksha Manhas, Legal Manager as R3W1. She has exhibited the copy of Power of Attorney in her favour Ex.R3W1/1, Attested copy of insurance policy Ex.R3W1/2, Notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/3 and Four Postal Receipts Ex.R3W1/4 in her evidence. 10.2 The copy of the driving license of the respondent no. 1 is a part of the record. Perusal of the same shows that the date of first issue of the said license is 08.08.2023. Thus, clearly the respondent no. 1 did not have a valid driving license on the date of the accident. The same constitutes a violation of the terms of the insurance policy issued by respondent no. 3. 10.3 Hence, it is established on record that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy and hence, respondent no.1 & 2 are held liable. However, merely for this reason, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the award amount to the petitioner.
10.4 The MV Act is a social welfare legislation enacted amongst other purposes for the benefit of the victim of Road Traffic Accident and for speedy disposal of such cases. A mere glance at the aims and objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 would show that one of the main objective that the act aims to achieve is to ensure expeditious help to accident victim and their families.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.20 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:21 +0530
The act provides compulsory insurance qua third party risk making the insurance company liable to reimburse the insured in case of any liability incurred by him towards third party, arising out of motor vehicle accident involving his vehicle. The act aims at providing compensation to the victim of the accident who have suffered injuries 'grievous or simple' or the loss of their loved ones to ensure that they are able to lead a decent life post accident. Though the compensation awarded to a victim of a accident under the MV Act cannot relegate the person to the same position as he was in, before the accident, yet the financial assistance provided to him in the form of compensation provides some ray of light to him and enables him to lead a decent life post accident. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the compensation to which a victim of an accident is held entitled in the judgment or an award passed by MACT Tribunal, is made available to him without any delay and the victim is not made to run from pillar to post to obtain the same and also does not have to wait for years and years to receive the compensation. Any delay in payment of compensation would amount to rendering the provisions of the MV Act meaningless. It also cannot be lost sight of that where the driver and the owner are the persons with weak financial background, the payment of the compensation to the victim would infact become impossible. 10.5 Recently, a similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in matter of "ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Arti Devi & Ors", First Appeal from order No.1780 of 2024. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 31.01.2025 held that the principle of pay & recover would Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.21 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:24
+0530
still be applicable. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced here as under:-
"21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub- Section (4) of Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the words "shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect" would only mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner's risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub- Section (4) would not have been there before the amendment, the indemnification concept would have till remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment hereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it.
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.22 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:27 +0530
23-24 xxx
25. The Court cannot overlook an aspect that Section 147(5) of the Act, prior to amendment has been replaced by Section 147(6) of the Act after amendment but there are no qualifying words referable to section 150. Sub-section (6) of section 147 reads as under:-
"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons."
From renumbering of the sub-section, as above, it follows that once the liability to indemnify the person specified in the policy, as per sub-section (6) of Section 147, even after amendment, continues to exist in the Statute book and it excludes applicability of any other law for the time being in force, indemnification by the insurer does not vanish even after amendments incorporated by the Act of 2019. The right to recover the amount paid to the claimants as per conditions mentioned in section 150 would still be available to the insurer as indemnification has not been taken away by the legislature nor has it been explained by adding words to section 147 or anywhere else.
26. This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used in Section 149 (prior to amendment) and Section 150 (after amendment) would show that notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same has nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the amount from insurer. It means that claimants' right to receive compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract between the insurer and the owner.
27. Words "no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub- ection (1)" used either in Section 149 of the Act of 1988 (prior to amendment) in Section 150 (after amendment) would mean that if the grounds of defence set-forth in sub-section (2) of Section 149 or Section 150, as the case may be, exist, no sum shall be payable by the insurer. It does not mean that the sum shall not be paid by the insurer if the award contains a direction to the insurer to pay and recover. Liability to pay the amount has to be segregated from actual payment made by the insurer in case of survival and existence of insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the Act. Word "liability" has to be understood as the "final liability to bear the award for all time to come" separate from concept of indemnification by the insurer by making immediate payment.
28. xxx
29. Therefore, when the provisions of the Act of 1988 are read with C.P.C., it becomes clear that as soon as an award is passed, the claimants become entitled to get the amount of compensation and they get financial relief even during the pendency of the appeal filed by the insurer.
30. xxx Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.23 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:29
+0530
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer's liability to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is declared in their favour.
32-37. xxx
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner's risk in relation to accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and "PAY & RECOVER"
principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly."
Emphasis supplied.
10.6 From the above discussions, it is clear that the exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner would render award meaningless and would be against the benevolent provisions of the MV Act. 10.7 It would be also apposite to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in matter of "United India General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Santro Devi & Ors" (2009) 1 SCC 558 has observed as under:-
"14. The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.24 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:32 +0530
doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill the statutory requirements of formation of a valid contract but in case of a third party risk, the question has to be considered from a different angle. It was further held that Section 146 of the Act gives complete protection to third party in respect of or bodily injury or damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place. For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made compulsory to the vehicle or to the owner. This would further reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of Thirty party..."
10.8 It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in "National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors", a question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) vis a vis the proviso to sub-section 4 & 5 of the said Section of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as it then existed, was raised before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the insurance company that the defences provided in Section 149(2) must be allowed to be invoked by the insurer to its full effect and once the defence is proved, the Tribunal should be bound to discharge the insurer and affix the liability only on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle without any directions to pay the award amount and recover the same from the owner. The hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment while referring to Section 149(1) of the MV Act as it then existed (now Section 150(1) of the MV Act as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 adopted a liberal approach to protect the rights of third party and held that even if, the insurance company is able to establish its defence under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree with the right to recover the same from the owner. It was held that the liability of the insurer arises from the contract as well as the statute and therefore, it would not be proper to apply the rules of Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.25 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:35 +0530
interpretation of contract in interpreting a statute. It was held by the Hon'ble Court:-
"Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an independent provision and must be read in the context of Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor any effective meaning can be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance company contained in sub-section (1). The decision in Kamla's case (supra) has to be read in the aforementioned context.
Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub- section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading."
10.9 Section 149(1) of the MV Act, 1988 (as it existed prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) has now been renumbered as Section 150(1) of the MV Act 1988 (as amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) and thus, the said provision in its letter and spirit still exists on the statute book, and, therefore, the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) is still binding upon this Tribunal.
10.10 It would also be apposite to reproduce the following Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.26 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:38 +0530
findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra):-
"The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:-
"(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii)-(vii). Xxx
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-
section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.27 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:41
+0530
extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims."
10.11 Thus, even in cases where the insurance company has been able to make out a defence as per the provision of 149(2) [now Section 150(2)], the insurance company has been held liable to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the insured.
10.12 In view of the foregoing discussion, the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Section 150 sub- section 1 & 5 of the MV Act, 1988, Section 147(6) of the MV Act, 1988 and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (supra), the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the insurance company is held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as a valid policy was effective on the date of the accident and shall also be entitled to recover the said amount from the insured as per contract between them. Hence, insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners.
RELIEF:-
11. In view of the above discussion and findings on issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.5,33,299/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the DAR i.e.01.06.2024 till the date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.28 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:43 +0530
no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code - SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT 12.1(i) Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of MCTAP was recorded on 02.12.2025. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement, it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of Rs.2,33,299/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) along with interest on the entire award amount is directed to be kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples of Rs.10,000/- each for a period of one month, two months and three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest. 12.1(ii) The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be released in petitioner's Saving Bank Account. 12.1(iii) All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.29 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:45 +0530
bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant(s) to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
13. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary formalities as per rules.
14. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph, specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.30 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:48 +0530
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
15. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS on 20.03.2026.
16. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost through email.
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
18. Ahlmad staff is also 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." decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch for information.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 11th of February, 2026 (GUNJAN GUPTA) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/11.02.2026 Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.31 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:51
+0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 10.03.2023
2. Name of the injured : Mohit
3. Age of the injured : DOB: 20.05.1993
4. Occupation of the injured: Runner with Expedient Healthcare Marketing Pvt.
Limited
5. Income of the injured : Rs.20,357/- per month(as per Minimum Wages of skilled person)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 10.03.2023 to 30.06.2023
8. Period of Hospitalization : W.e.f. 13.03.2023 to 18.03.2023
9. Whether any permanent disability ? : No If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.91,157/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.50,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.60,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.60,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.1,22,142/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Nil
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.32 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:53 +0530
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
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 NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or NA
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NA
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NA
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.5,33,299/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.1,38,257/-
the date of award (w.e.f. 25.03.2023 to
11.02.2026 i.e. 2 years 10
months and 17 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.6,71,556/-
INCLUDING (Rs.5,33,299/- +
INTEREST Rs.1,38,257/-)
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.33 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:55 +0530
18. Award amount released Rs.2,33,299/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.3,00,000/- + accrued
FDRs interest
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 20.03.2026
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/11.02.2026
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.34 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:57 +0530