Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar vs Shri Bhagwan on 7 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDEEP RAJ SAINI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-02
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors.
MACT No. 369/2018
Sunil
S/o Sh. Murari Lal
R/o 1007, Near Primary School Chhara
Jhajjar, Haryana - 124504
....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Shri Bhagwan Yadav (Driver)
S/o Sh. Mangat Ram Yadav
R/o RZH-10, Raj Nagar-2
Palam Colony, Delhi - 110077
2. Pooja Yadav (Owner)
D/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh
R/o RZ-23, E/6 B Indira Park
Street No.17, Palam Colony
New Delhi - 110 045.
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
having its office at:
105 Palika Bhawan
Sector - 13, R.K.Puram, Delhi
....Respondents
Date of institution : 10.04.2018
Date of concluding arguments : 07.03.2026
Date of decision : 07.03.2026
AWARD
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereafter "DAR") was filed by the investigating officer, HC Dharmendra Singh, in FIR number 64 dated 17.02.2018 lodged at police station Chhawala under Sections 279/337 of IPC regarding injuries suffered by the petitioner, Shri Sunil, in a road accident MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 1 of 23 involving a Maruti 800 car bearing registration number DL 9CP 3952. The DAR was treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter "MV Act").
1.1 Respondent No. 1, Shri Bhagwan Yadav, is the driver and respondent No. 2, Ms. Pooja Yadav, is the owner of the said offending car. Respondent No. 3, National Insurance Company Limited, is its insurer.
DAR
2. As per the DAR, the petitioner and his friend Sh. Shashikant are residents of District Jhajjar, Haryana. Sh. Shashikant used to work at MBS Mall. On 17.02.2018 at about 10:00 a.m., Sh. Shashikant and the petitioner were going to attend their duty on a motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 13L 4396. Sh. Shashikant was driving the said motorcycle, while the petitioner was riding pillion. At about 11:10 a.m., when they reached Badusarai near Chhawala BSF Camp drain, a white Maruti 800 car bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and attempted to overtake from the front. Sh. Shashikant moved the motorcycle to his side, but the front portion of the car collided with the rear part of the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained injuries.
2.1 The driver of the car stopped the vehicle, and Sh. Shashikant noted down its registration number. Upon enquiry, the name of the driver of the car was found to be Shri Bhagwan Yadav. Sh. Shashikant called the police at number
100. A PCR vehicle arrived and removed the petitioner to Rao Tula Ram Memorial (RTRM) Hospital, Delhi, where his MLC was conducted. 2.2 On obtaining the opinion of the doctor on MLC no. 799/18, the offence under Sections 279/337 IPC was converted into Sections 279/338 IPC.
Defence of the Respondents
3. Notice of the DAR was served on the respondents.
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 2 of 23 3.1 Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement, wherein it is contended that the DAR is false and that no accident took place with the car bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952. It is further contended that the said car was duly insured with respondent no. 3 at the relevant time. 3.2 Respondent no. 3 filed a legal offer, wherein it admitted its liability and offered an amount of ₹55,000/- along with the medical expenses borne by the petitioner.
Inquiry
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on 06.06.2018 by my learned predecessor :
(1) Whether Sunil sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 17.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952 being driven by respondent no. 1 Shri Bhagwan Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2 Pooja Yadav and insured by respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ? OPP. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
(3) Relief.
Thereafter, the claim petition was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
5. In order to prove his claim, the petitioner examined three witnesses.
6. Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. 6.1 In his evidence by way of affidavit, the petitioner deposed regarding the circumstances of the accident in a manner consistent with the version recorded in the DAR. He deposed regarding his employment and the expenses incurred by him on his treatment.
6.2 The petitioner has relied on the following documents in support of his testimony:
Ex. PW 1/1 is the set of his treatment documents.
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 3 of 23 Ex. PW 1/2 is the set of his photographs showing injury. Ex. PW1/3 is the set of medical bills Ex. PW1/4 is the copy of his Aadhaar card.
Ex. PW1/5 is the copy of his Election ID card. Ex. PW1/6 is the copy of his PAN card.
Ex. PW1/7 is the DAR.
6.3 In his cross-examination, petitioner denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his own negligence. He admitted that the motorcycle was registered in the name of his brother Anil.
7. The petitioner examined Sh. Shashikant as PW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and the same is exhibited as Ex. PW2/A. In his evidence by way of affidavit, PW2 deposed regarding the circumstances of the accident in a manner consistent with the version recorded in the DAR. PW2 deposed that he was complainant in the FIR pertaining to this matter and that he is friend of petitioner and that he was driving the motorcycle on the day of the accident.
7.1 PW2 has relied on the following documents in support of his testimony:
Ex. PW 2/1 is his complaint dated 17.02.2018 Ex. PW 2/2 is the FIR no. 64/2018 Ex. PW 2/3 is the copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW2/4 is the copy of his Driving License 7.2 In his cross-examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his own negligence.
8. The petitioner also examined a summoned witness, Dr. Ishwar Singh, Orthopaedic Surgeon from Ishwar Orthopaedic and Arthroscopy Centre, Rohtak, as PW3.
PW3 proved the bills of Ishwar Orthopaedic Centre pertaining to the treatment of the petitioner, which are exhibited as Ex. PW3/1 to Ex. PW3/15. These bills amount to ₹1,98,348/-.
9. After completion of petitioner's evidence, the matter was fixed for MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 4 of 23 respondents' evidence.
10. The respondents did not lead any evidence.
11. I have heard learned counsels Sh. Abhishak Agarwal for the petitioner, Sh.
Rishi Prakash for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Ms. Meenakshi Kataria for respondent no. 3. I have perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue No. 1:
Whether Sunil sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident dated 17.02.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952 being driven by respondent no. 1 Shri Bhagwan Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2 Pooja Yadav and insured by respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ? OPP.
12. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner. In discharge of this onus, the petitioner has relied upon his own testimony, the testimony of PW2, as well as the DAR.
13. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to briefly examine the legal position regarding the standard of proof required to be met by the petitioner in an accident claim before the Claims Tribunal.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held:
"15.In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others (2018) 5 Supreme Court Cases 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:
"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 5 of 23 by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Others 2008 (101) DRJ 645 has held:
"12. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal; 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet under Section 279/304- A,IPC against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver."
17. It is clear from the above discussed authoritative pronouncements that in claim petition under MV Act, strict proof of an accident caused by particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the petitioner. The petitioner is merely to establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Filing of charge-sheet against the driver prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even if the driver were to be acquitted in the criminal case, MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 6 of 23 the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must take a holistic view of the matter.
18. The issue of negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 is to be examined in the light of the evidence brought on record.
18.1 In the present case, the accident took place on 17.02.2018 at around 11:10 a.m. and PW2, Sh. Shashikant, lodged FIR no. 64 at Police Station Chhawala on the same day. Hence, there was no delay in lodging of the FIR. 18.2 On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the respondent no.1 under Sections 279/338 of the IPC showing the involvement of offending Maruti 800 car bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952. 18.3 In the criminal case arising out of the accident, the learned MM07, Dwarka Courts, vide order dated 26.03.2021 passed in Cr. Case no. 28650/201 titled as State vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav, has framed charges against the respondent no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of the IPC. 18.4 The arrest memo dated 17.02.2018 shows that the respondent no. 1 was arrested in the criminal case related to the accident. 18.5 The respondent no. 2, in her reply to the notice dated 17.02.2018 under Section 133, MV Act issued to her, admitted that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952 on the day of accident.
18.6 The seizure memo dated 17.02.2018 of the offending Maruti 800 car bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952 reflects that it was seized by the Investigating Officer, HC Dharmendra Singh, in an accidental condition from the spot of accident.
18.7 The seizure memo dated 17.02.2018 of the motorcycle bearing registration no. HR 13L 4396 reflects that it was seized by the Investigating Officer, HC Dharmendra Singh, in an accidental condition from the spot of accident. 18.8 The Mechanical Inspection Reports dated 18.02.2018 of the motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-13L-4396 and the offending car bearing MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 7 of 23 registration no. DL-9CP-3952 reflect that both vehicles had sustained fresh damage. White paint of the offending car was found on the right side leg guard of the motorcycle. Blue paint was found on the front right wheel fender of the car.
18.9 The depositions of the petitioner and PW2 regarding the accident and negligence of the respondent no. 1 is consistent.
18.10 The respondent nos. 1 & 2 have neither denied involvement of respondent no. 1 in the accident nor negligence on his part by leading evidence. 18.11 The medical documents forming part of the DAR further lend credence to its contents. MLC no. 799/18 of the petitioner dated 17.02.2018 issued by RTRM Hospital, reflects that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident.
19. Taking a holistic view, it stands proved, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti 800 car bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952, being driven by respondent no. 1 Shri Bhagwan Yadav, owned by respondent no. 2 Pooja Yadav and insured by respondent no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd., thereby causing grievous injuries to the petitioner. Issue no. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Issue No. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP.
20. Onus to prove this issue was on the petitioner.
In view of finding on Issue No. 1, the petitioner is held entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the road accident.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 has laid down the general principles relating to compensation in injury cases and held:
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 8 of 23 "6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also laid down the principles regarding assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability:
"19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors."
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/0773/2013, while dealing with the case of a 24 years old model and actress, who had suffered grievous injuries on her face and parts of her body held as follows:
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 9 of 23 "38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the Appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made by this Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the Appellant's permanent disability should be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability..."
23. From the foregoing authoritative pronouncements, it is manifest that permanent physical disability is not the same as functional disability. Permanent physical disability refers to the medical assessment of the loss or impairment of a part of the body as a result of an injury. Functional disability, on the other hand, relates to the extent to which such physical disability affects the petitioner's ability to perform his or her job or earning capacity. Functional disability may be less than, equal to, or in some cases more than the permanent physical disability based on the nature of the petitioner's work and the injury's impact on earning capacity. The same permanent disability may result in different degrees of functional disability or loss of earning capacity in different individuals, depending on factors such as the nature of their profession, occupation or job, as well as their age and educational background.
Functional Disability of the Petitioner
24. The disability of the petitioner was assessed by the duly constituted Ortho Board of DDU Hospital in compliance of order dated 02.11.2022, of my learned predecessor.
24.1 As per Disability Certificate bearing no. F.1(1)/DDU/MB/2023/190812 dated 30.09.2023, issued by the said Board, the petitioner is a case of post-
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 10 of 23 traumatic post-operated fracture of both bones of the right leg with implant in situ, along with ankle stiffness and shortening of one inch. He has been assessed to have 13% permanent physical disability in relation to the right lower limb.
24.2 The petitioner, in his affidavit by way of evidence, stated that due to the said disability he could not compete as a state-level wrestler. 24.3 In his cross-examination, however, the petitioner deposed that he was working as a Supervisor at B.R. Globals, Gurugram, earning ₹25,000/- per month. He admitted that at the time of the accident he was employed as a Supervisor in Defendor Company, Gurugram, earning ₹22,000/- to ₹23,000/- per month. He further admitted that he had not placed any salary slips on record. He also admitted that at present he is fully recovered and able to walk properly.
24.4 The petitioner has not exhibited any documentary proof regarding his income, employment, educational qualifications, or his alleged participation as a state-level wrestler. Though certain educational documents were placed on record, they were not exhibited. In his cross-examination, he claimed to be 12th pass. The petitioner has also not examined any member of the Ortho Board to clarify the practical impact of the assessed disability. 24.5 As per his Election Identity Card (Ex. PW1/5) and PAN Card (Ex. PW1/6), the petitioner was 23 years of age at the time of the accident. 24.6 In the present case, the petitioner has admittedly continued in the same job profile of Supervisor as he was holding prior to the accident, though with a different company. Admittedly, his salary has increased after the accident. He has also admitted that he is presently fully recovered and able to walk properly. There is no evidence on record to show that he has suffered loss of employment or diminished promotional prospects on account of the said disability.
24.7 In view of the admissions by the petitioner and applying the test laid down in Raj Kumar (supra) and Rekha Jain (supra), it cannot be held that the MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 11 of 23 permanent physical disability of 13% in relation to the right lower limb has resulted in any loss of earning capacity. Therefore, no amount can be granted under the head of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. 24.8 Nevertheless, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner has suffered a permanent physical disability involving ankle stiffness and shortening of one inch in the right leg. Even if such disability has not affected his earning capacity, it would reasonably cause difficulty in strenuous physical activities and competitive sports such as wrestling, which he claims to have pursued. It would also cause some restriction in enjoyment of normal amenities of life. 24.9 In view of the permanent physical disability of 13% in relation to the right lower limb and the attendant limitations in physical activities and enjoyment of life, the petitioner is awarded a lump sum compensation of ₹1,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure
25. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, claimed to have incurred medical expenses to the tune of ₹4,00,000/-. The treatment record and medical bills placed on record show that he underwent most of his treatment at a private hospital, Ishwar Orthopedic Hospital, Rohtak. PW3, Dr. Ishwar Singh, proved medical bills amounting to ₹1,98,348/-. In the opinion of this Tribunal, the petitioner is entitled only to reimbursement of those medical expenses which have been duly proved on record. Accordingly, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of ₹1,98,348/- towards medicines and treatment.
26. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, claimed to have spent ₹85,000/- towards conveyance for visiting the hospital for treatment and ₹35,000/- towards special diet. However, he has not placed on record any bills or documentary proof in support of the said claims. Keeping in view MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 12 of 23 that the petitioner has suffered grievous injuries, the petitioner must have incurred expenses on conveyance and special diet. Therefore, the petitioner is awarded ₹25,000/- towards special diet and ₹25,000/- towards conveyance.
27. The petitioner, in his evidence by way of affidavit, has claimed that he spent ₹72,000/- towards availing the services of an attendant, namely Sh. Vijay. However, he has neither examined the said attendant as a witness nor placed on record any documentary proof or bills to substantiate the payment. 27.1 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some family members for the benefit of tortfeasor. 27.2 Keeping in view the nature of injury of the petitioner, a sum of ₹25,000/- is granted to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had she not been injured Loss of earning during the period of treatment
28. As per his Aadhaar Card, the petitioner is a resident of Haryana. The petitioner has not placed on record any documentary proof to establish his actual income. He has not exhibited his education related documents. 28.1 In the absence of proof of income, the income of the petitioner is required to be assessed as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as applicable in the State of Haryana at the time of the accident. It is not in dispute that the minimum wages payable in Haryana as on 17.02.2018 (the date of accident) were ₹ 8497.56/- per month. The same is taken as the notional monthly income of the petitioner (A).
28.2 Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the fact that the petitioner suffered permanent physical disability, it can reasonably be presumed that he would not have been able to attend work for a period of about four months during MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 13 of 23 treatment and recovery. Accordingly, the loss of income for four months is calculated as ₹33,990.24 [8,497.56 × 4 = 33,990.24].
Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to ₹33,990.24 towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment.
Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
29. The aspect of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability has already been considered and discussed in detail under the heading "Functional Disability of the Petitioner". In view of the findings recorded therein, the petitioner has been held not entitled to any compensation under this head.
Future medical expenses
30. The petitioner has not led any evidence to show that he requires further treatment or is likely to incur medical expenses in future. Accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount towards future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries
31. The following factors that are to be taken into account for assessing compensation under the head pain and suffering:
i. Nature of injury ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred iii. Surgeries, if any iv. Confinement in hospital v. Duration of the treatment 31.1 The accident took place on 17.02.2018 and the petitioner was treated at RTRM Hospital, Delhi and thereafter at Ishwar Orthopaedic Hospital, MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 14 of 23 Rohtak. The petitioner suffered multiple fractures in the right leg. As per the medical bills dated 23.02.2018 and 26.09.2018 of Ishwar Orthopaedic Hospital, Rohtak, the petitioner remained admitted therein from 17.02.2018 to 23.02.2018 and again from 21.09.2018 to 26.09.2018.
31.2 As per his aforesaid disability certificate of DDU Hospital, the petitioner has permanent physical disability of 13 % in relation to right lower limb.
31.3 In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to ₹30,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹20,000/- towards mental and physical shock.
Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
32. The aspect of loss of amenities has already been considered and discussed in detail under the heading "Functional Disability of the Petitioner". In view of the findings recorded therein, the petitioner is held entitled to a lump sum compensation of ₹1,00,000/- under this head.
Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)
33. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation on account of loss of expectation of life. Other heads claimed by the petitioner:
34. In the absence of any evidence on record, no case is made out for grant of compensation to the petitioner under any other head.
35. The compensation payable under various heads is summarized below:
Serial Heads Amount
No.
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
1. Medicines & Treatment ₹1,98,348/-
2. Special Diet ₹25,000/-
3. Conveyance ₹25,000/-
4. Attendant Charges ₹25,000/-
5. Loss of Earning during the period of treatment ₹33,990.24 MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 15 of 23
6. Loss of Future Earnings Nil.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
7. Pain & Suffering ₹30,000/-
8. Mental & Physical Shock ₹20,000/-
9. Loss of amenities of life ₹1,00,000/-
Total ₹4,57,338.24 (rounded off
to ₹4,58,000/-)
Liability
36. Respondent no. 1, being the principal tortfeasor, is primarily liable to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner. Respondent no. 2, being the registered owner of the offending vehicle, is vicariously liable for the acts of respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 3 has admitted that the offending vehicle, that is, Maruti 800 car bearing registration no. DL 9CP 3952, was duly insured with it on the date of the accident against third-party risks. 36.1 Respondent no. 3 has not placed anything on record showing any right to recover against the other respondents. Therefore, the respondent no. 3, National Insurance Co. Ltd., shall pay the award amount with interest to the petitioner without any right to recover the same from the other respondents. Issue No. 2 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 3: Relief
37. In view of findings on Issue No. 2, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of ₹4,58,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Only) along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR, that is, 10.04.2018 till the date of compliance, that is, 06.04.2026. Thereafter, simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment, if any. The amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be excluded from the award amount. Direction(s) to Respondent No. 3 :
38. In terms of Section 168(3) of the MV Act, the award amount along with MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 16 of 23 interest shall be deposited/ transferred by respondent no. 3, National Insurance Company Ltd., in the bank account of this Tribunal (Bank Account No. 42709452600 at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi; IFSC Code SBIN0011566; MICR Code 110002483) by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal and with notice of deposit to the petitioner. Release
39. The statement of the petitioner regarding his financial status, needs and liabilities has been recorded.
The details of the MACT bank account of the petitioner and the address of the bank with IFSC Code are as follows:
Name Bank Details
Sh. Sunil A/c no. 43552009028 at State Bank of India, Dwarka Court
Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi; IFSC Code:
SBIN0011566.
40. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi & Others vs. Jaibir Singh & Others FAO No. 842/2003 has formulated the Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) scheme vide its order dated 01.05.2018 and implemented the same vide its subsequent orders dated 07.12.2018 and 08.01.2021.
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 16.07.2024 in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Others Writ Petition (Civil) no. 534/2020 has held:
"9. To clarify the aforesaid position, it is for the Tribunal in a given case to make a decision as to whether the entire amount has to be released or if it is to be released in part. Suffice it is to state that the Tribunal is expected to give its own reasoning while undertaking such an exercise."
Schedule of Disbursal
42. Keeping in view the quantum of the award, expenses incurred by the petitioner on his treatment and loss of earning during the period of treatment, fifty percent (50%) of the award amount be immediately released to the MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 17 of 23 petitioner.
The remaining fifty percent (50%) of the award amount of the petitioner be kept in the form of one FDR for a period of one year in terms of the aforesaid MACAD scheme.
Directions to the Bank(s)
43. The Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka is directed to comply with the Schedule of Disbursal provided in this Award.
The said Manager is further directed that:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the MACT accounts of the petitioner.
(b) The original fixed deposit/FDR 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 petitioner.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the FDR without permission of this Tribunal.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner for her MACT account. 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.
44. The Form-XVI of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
FORM-XVI SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident: 17.02.2018
2. Name of injured: Shri Sunil
3. Age of the injured: 23 years (at the time of accident)
4. Occupation of the injured: Working as Supervisor (as claimed) MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 18 of 23
5. Income of the injured: ₹8,497.56 per month
6. Nature of injury: Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: RTRM Hospital, Delhi and Ishwar Orthopedic Hospital, Rohtak.
8. Period of hospitalization: From 17.02.2018 to 23.02.2018 and again from 21.09.2018 to 26.09.2018 at Ishwar Orthopedic Hospital, Rohtak.
9. Whether any permanent disability? Permanent physical disability of 13 % in relation to right lower limb.
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹1,98,348/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹25,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant ₹25,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb Nil.
(vi) Loss of future earning Nil.
(vii) Loss of income ₹33,990.24
(viii) Any other loss which may require any Nil.
special treatment or aid to the injured for
the rest of him life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical ₹20,000/-
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering ₹30,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹1,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Nil.
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 19 of 23
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, As above.
hardships, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Permanent Physical Disability of nature of disability as permanent or 13% in relation to right lower temporary limb.
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation Included in 12 (iii) above.
of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil.
relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income -(Income x % Nil.
Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹4,57,338.24 (rounded off to
₹4,58,000/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED Simple interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of institution
of the petition (10.04.2018) till
the date of compliance
(06.04.2026).
Thereafter, simple interest @ 12%
per annum.
16. Interest amount up to the date of award ₹2,71,651/-
17. Total amount including interest up to the ₹7,29,651/-
date of award
18. Award amount released 50%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 50%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award Account Transfer amount to the claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of the award 06.04.2026
45. The Form-XVII of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) on 08.01.2021 is as under:
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 20 of 23 FORM-XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 17.02.2018
2. Date of filing of Form I- First Not Known Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the Not Known victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Not Known Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Not Known owner
6. Date of filing of the Form- Not Known V- Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form Not Known VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form- 10.04.2018 VII- Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No deficiency on the part of the Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not Known Officer by the Insurance Company.
11. Whethim the Designated Officer of the No. Insurance Company submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No. deficiencies on the part of the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company?If so, whether any action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the claimants(s) of No. the offer of the Insurance Company.
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 21 of 23
14. Date of the award 07.03.2026
15. Whether the claimants(s) was/were Yes directed to open savings bank account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimants(s) 10.04.2018 was/were directed to open savings bank account(s) near him 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 claimants(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 20.12.2024 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 Address of the 1007, Near Primary School Chhara, claimant(s) Jhajjar, Haryana - 124 504.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank Yes account(s) is near him place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were Yes examined at the time of passing of the award to ascertain him/their financial condition?
46. Dasti copy of Award be given to the parties free of cost.
47. Attested copy of Award be sent to the Manager, State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka New Delhi.
48. Copy of Award be also sent to the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate and Delhi State Legal Services Authority.
49. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra).
MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 22 of 23
50. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a separate miscellaneous file to be listed on 27.04.2026 for compliance report.
51. File be consigned to the record room after compliance of necessary formalities.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SUDEEP RAJ SAINI) COURT ON 07.03.2026 PO, MACT-02, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI SUDEEP Digitally signed by SUDEEP RAJ RAJ SAINI Date: 2026.03.07 SAINI 15:33:54 +0530 MACT No. 369/2018 Sunil vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav & Ors. Page No. 23 of 23