Delhi District Court
Vechan Paswan(D)I(204/24/B) vs Saif Ali(Magma) on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010099882024
MACT No. : 466/2024
FIR No. : 204/2024
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/337/304A IPC
Sh. Vechan Paswan (injured/petitioner)
S/o. Sh. Mahendra Paswan,
R/o. Village Devipatti Bathnaha, Debipatti,
Supaut, Bihar-852218.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Saif Ali (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Sher Khan,
R/o. 51, Dabar Talab, Sangam Vihar,
Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.
2. Sh. Sher Khan (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Late Sh. Sanaullah,
R/o. 51, Dabar Talab, Sangam Vihar,
Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Unit No.A-2, 2nd Floor, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road,
Near Kalra Hospital, New Delhi-110015.
...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 04.07.2024
Judgment reserved on : 08.04.2026
Date of Award : 08.04.2026
MACT No.466/2024
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 1 of 34
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:07:40
+0530
AWAR D
1. The present DAR was filed on 04.07.2024 which was
treated as the claim petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took
place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM near Hanuman Mandir, Holy
Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari.
Mr. Vechan Paswan sustained injuries in the said accident which was
allegedly caused by a Tractor bearing registration No. UP-14EU-1847
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The offending vehicle
was being driven by respondent no. 1 Mr. Saif Ali, owned by respondent
no. 2 Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that a PCR call vide DD No.92A dated 21.03.2024 regarding information of an accident was received at PS Burari and handed over to ASI Raj Kumar, who alongwith HC Narender went to the spot i.e. near Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi where they found one scooty bearing no. DL-8SCZ-9744 and its driver Vechan Paswan. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Sh. Vechan Paswan. Sh. Vechan Paswan had told the IO that the another injured Lalit Kumar Sisodia had been taken to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. IO called the crime team at the spot of accident. The crime team had inspected and taken photographs of the spot of accident.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.466/2024 SINGLA
Date: 2026.04.08
15:07:45 +0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 2 of 34
3. Thereafter, after leaving the HC Narender at the spot of accident, IO went to the Trauma Centre where he got to know that Sh. Lalit Kumar Sisodia was brought dead in the said hospital. Thereafter, IO collected the MLC no.3640/24 of Sh. Lalit Kumar Sisodia. After collecting the MLC, IO returned to the spot of accident. IO got admitted the injured Vechan Paswan in the Burari Hospital for treatment and collected his MLC no.772/24. Thereafter, IO took both the accidental vehicles i.e. Scooty no. DL-8SCZ-9744 and Tractor bearing no. UP-14EU-1847 into his custody and deposited the same in malkhana. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of statement of injured Vechan Paswan and MLCs of injured persons u/s.279/337/304A IPC.
4. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Vechan Paswan. No CCTV Footage was found at the spot of accident. Thereafter, IO got conducted the post mortem of the body of Sh. Lalit Kumar Sisodia from Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Thereafter, he collected the post mortem report bearing no.367/24 and dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, IO obtained the ownership of the offending vehicle and notice under Section 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of the offending vehicle. Upon the notice, owner had given reply and accepted that he was owner of the Tractor and at the time of accident his son i.e. Saif Ali was driving the offending vehicle/Tractor. Owner had also produced the driver of the offending vehicle before the IO. Thereafter, complainant Vechan Paswan came to the PS and recognized the driver of the offending vehicle and submitted that at the time of accident the said driver was driving the RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Date: 2026.04.08 15:07:50 +0530 Page 3 of 34 offending vehicle.
5. Thereafter, IO inquired from driver of the offending vehicle and arrested him. The owner of the offending vehicle had handed over the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle to the IO. Upon producing the surety, the driver of the offending vehicle was released on bail. Thereafter, IO had submitted the MLC of injured Vechan Paswan for final opinion. Thereafter, he collected the MLC of injured Vechan Paswan in which the doctors had opined the injuries as "Simple". Mechanical inspection of both the accidental vehicles were got conducted. The documents of the offending vehicle was got verified from the concerned authorities and the same were found to be correct. Both the vehicles were released on superdari.
6. It was found by the IO that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver without having registration number plate. Accordingly, the offence u/s.50/177 MV Act was added. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/337/304(A) IPC & 50/177 MV Act was filed against the driver Saif Ali before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
7. WS was filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 on 12.09.2024. It was stated that the present accident was not caused due to the fault and negligence of the respondent no.1. Hence, it was stated that RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 4 of 34 by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:08:01 +0530 the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation.
8. Reply was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 on 12.09.2024. It was stated that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company vide policy no.P0224400002/4017/100410 for the period 30.04.2023 to 29.04.2024. It was stated that as per the record of respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 2 owner/insured has paid the insurance premium for insuring his tractor bearing registration no.
UP-14EU-1847 but he had not paid any additional insurance premium for covering the risk of any attachments to the tractor such as safety tank which was attached with the tractor at the time of alleged accident. It was stated that the accident was caused by the safety tank. Hence, the insurance policy could not be used as the same did not cover an accident caused by an attachment.
9. It was further stated that as per the DAR, the aforesaid tractor was registered with the transport authority with the description of "agriculture tractor" whereas during investigation, it has come on record in the disclosure statement of the respondent no. 1 that he was using the said tractor alongwith the safety tank for commercial purposes for cleaning residential houses. It is stated that as the respondent no. 2 was using the offending vehicle for a purpose other than the one for which it was registered, the insurance policy was violated and the respondent no.3 was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:08:07 +0530 MACT No.466/2024 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 5 of 34 ISSUES
10. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated 12.09.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered simple injuries in an accident that took place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM near Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14EU-1847 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Saif Ali, owned by respondent no. 2 Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1.Medical treatment records and medical bills are Ex.PW1/1 in affidavit were de-exhibited.
2.Copy of PAN Card of deponent as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
3.Copy of Aadhar card of deponent as Ex. PW1/3 (OSR).
4.Attested copy of DAR as Ex. PW1/4.
12. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and respondent no.3. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, PE was closed on 14.10.2025.
RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed by Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 6 of 34 RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.08 15:08:13 +0530 RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
13. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R1W1/A. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for respondent no. 3 and Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
14. The respondent no. 2 examined himself as R2W1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R2W1/A. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 and Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Vide separate joint statement of respondents no. 1 and 2, the RE was closed on 22.01.2026.
15. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 examined Sh. Rahul Kumar Sharma as R3W1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R3W1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his Aadhar Card as Ex. R3W1/1.
2. Copy of insurance policy is Ex. R3W1/2.
16. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. Vide separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, RE was closed vide order dated 20.11.2025.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:08:18 +0530 MACT No.466/2024 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 7 of 34 FINAL ARGUMENTS
17. The Petitioner filed his duly filled Form XIV and the financial statement of the petitioner was recorded. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
18. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured suffered simple injuries in an accident that took place on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM near Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration no. UP-14EU-1847 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Saif Ali, owned by respondent no. 2 Sher Khan and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd?
19. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioners that on 21.03.2024 at about 02:15 PM,
21.03.2024, the deceased Lalit Kumar alongwith the petitioner were going on their scooty bearing no. DL 8SCZ 9744. When they reached near Hanuman Mandir, Holy Chowk, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner came from RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.466/2024 Date: 2026.04.08 15:08:23 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 8 of 34 opposite side and hit the scooty of the petitioner, due to which he fell and suffered injuries. It is stated that during investigation, the offending vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no.1 was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the petitioner suffered injuries.
20. Record perused.
21. In the present matter, the factum of the accident is not in dispute. In the WS filed by respondent no. 1 & 2, they have merely stated that the accident was not caused due to the negligence of the respondent no.1. It is not even alleged that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent act of some other person. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
22. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:08:28 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 9 of 34 +0530 was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/337/304A IPC. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held as under :-
"......where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available from the side of driver."
23. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that "......in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced."
24. Even otherwise, the deceased and the eye witness were unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why they will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
25. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.466/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:08:33 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 10 of 34 prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the "accident speaks for itself". Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgments of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL. 52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP. 428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi & Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 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 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 chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his Digitally signed by MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. 15:08:39 +0530 Page 11 of 34 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."
27. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. From the DAR, it also stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
The injury:
28. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered Digitally MACT No.466/2024 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. 2026.04.08 15:08:44 +0530 Page 12 of 34 injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner have relied upon the MLC dated 21.03.2024, as per which the petitioner was brought to the hospital with the history of road traffic accident. As per the MLC, he had suffered various injuries on his body i.e. swelling over right elbow joint, right knee joint and pain. Further, it was stated that the injuries were simple in nature.
29. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due to the said accident, the injured suffered simple injury. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP)
30. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act' for RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.08 15:08:49 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 13 of 34 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 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. RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.08 15:08:54 +0530 MACT No.466/2024 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 14 of 34
(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)."
31. In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in 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. This is a case where the petitioner has claimed that he suffered simple injury due to the accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
32. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head.
Loss of income:
33. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the time of the accident, the petitioner was doing labour work with Anmol Wall Fashion, Rohini, Delhi and earning Rs.20,000/- pm. However, it is conceded that he does not have any proof of income. Hence, it is submitted that his income may be calculated as per the applicable minimum wages payable at Delhi.
34. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/2024 2026.04.08
15:08:59
+0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 15 of 34
no. 3 that the petitioner has not led any evidence to prove that he was working at Delhi. Admittedly, he is a permanent resident of Bihar. Hence, It is submitted that his income be calculated as per the minimum wages payable at Bihar.
35. Record perused.
36. As mentioned above, no income proof of the petitioner is proved on record and it is conceded that his income be assessed as per the minimum wages criteria. His educational documents are not proved on record. Hence, his income shall be assessed as per the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker.
37. Now, it is submitted by the petitioner that he was working at Delhi. He did not lead any evidence qua his employment at Delhi and admittedly, he is a permanent resident of Bihar. However, perusal of the chargesheet shows that the FIR was registered on the statement of the petitioner on the same day as the accident. In his statement before the IO, he has specifically stated that he was residing at Village Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi and that he was working at a wallpaper shop in Gali no. 4, Muthoot wali gali which was owned by one Sh. Manjesh. When his statement was recorded by the IO, the petitioner may not have even known that he may get compensation from the court or his address/place of employment shall be a relevant factor for computation of compensation. Further, it is highly improbable that he would make up his residence address and place of employment. Hence, from the record, RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed MACT No.466/2024 by RUCHIKA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.08 15:09:04 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 16 of 34 it seems that as on the date of accident, the petitioner was working at Delhi.
38. Hence, the petitioner's income shall be ascertained as per the minimum wages payable at Delhi. The date of the accident is 21.03.2024. As per the relevant notification, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker on that day were Rs. 17,494/-. Hence, the income of the petitioner is assessed to be Rs. 17,494/-.
39. As mentioned above, as per the medical record of the petitioner, he has suffered swelling and pain in his arm and leg. Hence, he had suffered simple injuries. No other treatment papers were proved. Hence, he is granted loss of income for one month. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of income for 1 month i.e. Rs. 17,494/- x 1 = Rs. 17,494/-.
Special diet:
40. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in view the fact the facts and circumstances, it is understandable that he must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
41. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/20242026.04.08 15:09:09 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 17 of 34 conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on conveyance, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
42. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on attendant, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner must have spent money on attendant thus, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
43. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 50,000/- under the head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.5,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings.
Mental and physical shock:
44. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this head.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:09:14 +0530 MACT No.466/2024 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 18 of 34 Loss of amenities
45. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would definitely have suffered loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Disfiguration, Loss of marriage prospects & Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
46. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under these heads. Hence, no amount is awarded.
47. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Nil Monthly income of injured Rs. 17,494/- Loss of income x 1 month Rs. 17,494/- Add future prospects Nil
Loss of future income (income X Nil % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:09:27 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 19 of 34 +0530 Conveyance charges Rs. 5,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 5,000/-
Suffering Loss of amenities Rs. 5,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 42,494/-
48. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 04.07.2024 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
49. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- per month.
50. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/2024 2026.04.08
15:09:33
+0530
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 20 of 34
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
"(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance."
51. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
MACT No.466/20242026.04.08 15:09:39 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 21 of 34 Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
"17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they should be required to open the bank account either individually or jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with any person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal."
52. In view of the same, the award amount can now be Digitally signed by RUCHIKA MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 22 of 34 15:09:43 +0530 disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the remaining directions as passed by the Hon'ble High Court shall be complied with.
53. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 49,232/- (Rupees Forty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Two only), the entire amount be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account maintained at Central Bank of India, P.O. Aamaha Via Pipka Bazar, Distt Supaul, Bihar bearing no. 4015069820, IFSC no. CBIN0282809.
54. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 21.03.2024
Name of the Injured: Vechan Paswan
Age of the Injured: Presently 39 years
Occupation of the Injured: Private Job
Income of the Injured: Rs. 17,494/- pm
Nature of Injury: Simple
Medical Treatment taken: Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi
Period of Hospitalization: Nil
Whether any permanent: No
disability?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:09:48
+0530
MACT No.466/2024
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 23 of 34
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Nil
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 5,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 17,494/-
(vi) Loss of income x 1 month Rs. 17,494/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 5,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 5,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
Digitally signed by MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 24 of 34
2026.04.08 15:09:52 +0530
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil and nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil expectation of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (income Nil x % earning capacity x Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 42,494/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has already been received by the petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs.6,737.34 (rounded off to Rs.6,738/-)
award w.e.f. 04.07.2024 till
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 49,232/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 53
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 53
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 08.05.2026
award
LIABILITY:
55. It has been established that accident was caused due to the Digitally MACT No.466/2024 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 25 of 34
2026.04.08 15:09:59 +0530 rash and negligent act of the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.3.
56. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that in the present matter, the conditions of the insurance policy were violated. Hence, the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay compensation.
It is submitted that as per the insurance policy Ex. R3W1/2, only the tractor was covered. The attachments to the tractor were not covered. It is submitted that this is an admitted fact that at the time of the accident, the tractor had a septic tank attached with it. The accident was caused by the septic tank and not by the tractor. Hence, the insurance policy is violated.
57. Record perused.
58. The onus to prove that the insurance policy was violated is upon the respondent no. 3. Perusal of the record shows that no such question was put by the respondent no. 3 to either the petitioner or the respondents no. 1 and 2 who entered the witness box as R1W1 and R2W1 that the accident was not caused by the tractor and by the septic tank. Further, perusal of the statement of the petitioner which was recorded by the IO at the time of the accident shows that he has stated that when, while driving the scooty, he reached West Sant Nagar, Gali no. 15, then one tractor was coming from the opposite side, who hit his scooty directly from the front due to which he and the deceased fell.
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:10:04 +0530 MACT No.466/2024 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 26 of 34 Further, he states that the driver of the tractor then ran over the deceased. The septic tank was admittedly attached behind the tractor and not in front of it. Hence, from the statement of the complainant, it transpires that the accident occurred due to a head on collusion. If the tractor came towards the scooter from the front and hit it from the front side, there is in no way a possibility that the accident was caused by the septic tank and not the tractor. Hence, as the accident was caused by the tractor itself and not the septic tank, the terms of the insurance policy are not violated.
59. Further, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Honnamma & ors. SLP No.2135/2023 decided on 05.05.2025. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has a case of similar facts in front of it where the accident was caused by a tractor which had a trailer attached to it. While discussing the liability of the insurance company in such a case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that :
"...Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor, as during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor, the accident occurred.
12. Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the position in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the insurance company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from Digitally MACT No.466/2024 signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 27 of 34
2026.04.08 15:10:08 +0530 the ones cited by learned counsel for the appellant. The legislation i.e., the MV Act, being beneficial and welfare- oriented in nature [Ningamma v United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 13 SCC 710; K Ramya v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1338, and; Shivaleela v Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 563] and ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor, which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let practicality be overshadowed by technicality."
60. In the present matter, as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the septic tank was attached with the tractor. Hence, even if the accident was caused by the septic tank, even then, the insurance company shall have the liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, as discussed above, the accident was caused by the tractor itself. Hence, the liability of the insurance company is absolute.
61. Further Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 has submitted that as per the admitted case of the respondents no. 1 and 2, the tractor was being used for cleaning houses but as per the policy, the permitted use of the tractor was only agriculture and forestry purposes. Hence, it is submitted that due to this reason, the terms of the insurance policy are MACT No.466/2024 Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 28 of 34 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:10:15 +0530 violated.
62. Record perused.
63. To prove the same, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has relied upon the disclosure statement of the respondent no. 1 which was recorded by the IO during the investigation of the case. In the said statement, the respondent no. 1 has stated that he was using the said tractor with septic tank for cleaning of the houses. A statement recorded before the IO during investigation is not admissible as per the Indian Evidence Act. Apart from this, there is no such evidence to prove that the tractor was being used for cleaning houses i.e. commercial purpose and not agricultural or forestry purpose. Again, no such question was put by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 to either the respondent no. 1 or the respondent no.2 when they entered into the witness box as R1W1 and R2W1 respectively. Hence, the respondent no. 3 has failed to prove that at the time of the accident, the tractor i.e. the offending vehicle was not being used for agricultural purposes. Hence, in the absence of the same, the respondent no. 3 cannot be exempted from its liability. Hence, the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
64. In view of the above, the respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.42,494/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Four Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 MACT No.466/2024 15:10:19 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 29 of 34 Hundred Ninety Four Only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 04.07.2024 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
65. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
RUCHIKA SINGLA Digitally signed by RUCHIKA SINGLA MACT No.466/2024 Date: 2026.04.08 15:10:24 +0530 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 30 of 34 Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 08.05.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally Announced in the open Court today signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
on this 08th April, 2026 2026.04.08 15:10:29 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.MACT No.466/2024 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 31 of 34
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 21.03.2024 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report 23.03.2024 (FAR) 3 Date of delivery of Form-II 04.07.2024 to the victim(s) 4 Date of receipt of Form-III 10.05.2024 from the Driver 5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner 10.05.2024 6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 10.05.2024 of the vehicle 7 Date of receipt of Form-
04.07.2024 VIA from the Victim(s) 8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
04.07.2024
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 04.07.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.466/2024 SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
15:10:35
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. +0530
Page 32 of 34
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the
claimant(s) to the offer of NA
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 08.04.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of 04.07.2024
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
26.02.2026
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.466/2024 RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08
Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 33 of 34
15:10:43
+0530
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant of passing of the Award to was recorded on 26.02.2026.
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date:
2026.04.08 15:10:47 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
08.04.2026 MACT No.466/2024 Vechan Paswan vs. Saif Ali and Ors. Page 34 of 34