Delhi District Court
Bhupender vs Ritu Sethi on 2 February, 2026
DLNW010030472024
Presented on : 30-03-2024
Registered on : 06-04-2024
Decided on : 02-02-2026
Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 3 days
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIKRAM,
PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL &
DISTRICT JUDGE -01, NORTH WEST : ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
==================================================
MACT CASE No.314/24 FIR No.1204/23, PS Mangolpuri In the matter of :
1. Sh. Bhupender S/o Late Sh. Malkhan Singh R/o B-71, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
.....Petitioner Vs.
1. Ms. Ritu Sethi W/o Sh. Rohit Sethi R/o A-55, Parijat Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi.
....Driver-cum-owner/R1
2. Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd.
....Insurer/R2 Appearance (s) : Sh. R. N. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Aditya Awasthi, ld. Counsel for R1/driver cum owner. Sh. Milind Awasthi, Ld. Counsel for R2/insurance company.
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 1 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.02.02
16:49:01
+0530
JUDGMENT/AWARD
1. Vide this judgment/award, I shall dispose off the Detailed Accidental Report (in short, the DAR) filed by the IO SI Tarun with regard to the injuries sustained by petitioner namely Sh. Bhupender for grant of compensation qua the accident occurred on 30.11.2023.
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of the present DAR are that on 30.11.2023, the petitioner was returning from Vidya Vihar Apartment after dropping his wife and going towards his residence on his vehicle bearing registration no.DL-4SDR-6088 (in short, "motorcycle"). When he reached in front of Parijat Apartment, suddenly a vehicle bearing registration no.DL-8CAP-6174 (in short "offending vehicle") which was being driven by its driver/respondent no.1 at a very high speed came from inside of Parijat Apartment and hit the motorcycle with a great force. As a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Delhi where his MLC bearing no.9604/23 was prepared. Thereafter, he was referred to ESI Hospital, Delhi.
3. It is stated that FIR bearing No.1204/23 of PS Mangolpuri, U/s 279/338 IPC was registered in this regard.
4. No written statement has been filed on behalf of R1/driver cum owner of the offending vehicle and her right to file WS was closed vide order dated 19.09.2024.
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 2 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:49:06
+0530
5. Written statement filed on behalf of R2/insurance and it is submitted that the offending vehicle is insured with respondent no.2 vide policy no.D097626110 issued w.e.f. 28.03.2023 to 27.03.2024 subject to terms and conditions. It is further submitted that as per MLC, the injuries of the injured has been opined by the doctor as grievous but there is no other document in the DAR with regard to income, period of treatment and the amount incurred on the treatment of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 was not having valid driving license on the date of accident, therefore, the insurance company has no liability to indemnify the respondent no.1 to pay any amount of compensation.
ISSUES
6. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by this Tribunal on 19.09.2024: -
1. Whether petitioner Bhupender, S/o Late Sh. Malkhan Singh suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 30.11.2023 at about 07:00 am in front of Gate Parijat Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no.DL 8CP 6174 which was being driven by driver Ms. Ritu W/o Sh. Rohit Sethi on the said date, time and place? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 3 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:49:15
+0530
3. Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE BEFORE LOCAL COMMISSIONER
7. Thereafter, matter was listed for recording of petitioner's evidence.
In order to prove its case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and deposed in terms of his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW-1/A and has relied on following documents:
i. The photocopy of his aadhar card is Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR). ii. Original treatment records and application to MCD for requesting to take on job after completion of treatment are Ex.PW-1/2 (colly). iii. The attested copy of DAR is Ex.PW-1/3.
iv. Copy of 10th pass certificate is Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR).
8. In his cross examination, he admitted that he was travelling on the wrong side of the road. He further deposed that the offending vehicle hit him on his right leg, hit front right side of his motorcycle. He further deposed that he remained admitted in ESI Hospital from 01.12.2023 to 12.12.2023 and the medical treatment was covered under the ESI facility and amount has been paid by him. He voluntarily deposed that some part of his salary was deducted towards the ESI facility. He further deposed that he got paid according to the number of working days being a contractual labour. He further deposed that he has resumed his duty with MCD w.e.f. 16.02.2024. He voluntarily deposed that he has taken frequent leaves because of pain in his leg on account of said accident. Thereafter, petitioner evidence was closed.
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 4 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:49:24
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
9. In order to prove the case, respondent no.2/insurance company has led evidence of R2W1 Abhishek Singh, Manager (Legal) Go Digit General Insurance Company Ltd. and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and relied on the documents i.e. copy of authority letter is Ex.R2W1/1, copy of insurance policy is Ex.R2W1/2 and copy of DL verification report is Ex.R2W1/3.
10. In his cross examination, he deposed that the verification report of driving license issued by IO in DAR showed that R1 was not authorized to drive the insured vehicle on the date of accident.
11. No other evidence was led by respondents, therefore, respondent evidence was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
FINDINGS
12. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the petitioner as well as respondents and have gone through the evidence lead on behalf of the parties including the pleadings and the documents. My issue wise findings in the case are as under :-
ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether petitioner Bhupender, S/o Late Sh. Malkhan Singh suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 30.11.2023 at about 07:00 am in front of Gate Parijat Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi, due to rash and negligent MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 5 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2026.02.02 16:49:30 +0530 driving of offending vehicle i.e. car bearing registration no.DL 8CP 6174 which was being driven by driver Ms. Ritu W/o Sh. Rohit Sethi on the said date, time and place? OPP.
13. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of 2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC)
303.
14. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in order to prove the facts regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place the offending vehicle, being driven at a high speed and in a rash & negligent MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 6 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:49:35
+0530
manner by R-1, hit his motorcycle due to which he fell down due to the impact and he sustained grievous injuries. However, in cross examination, the petitioner has admitted that he was driving on the wrong side.
15. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1 and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR, charge-sheet and MLC, also corroborate the oral testimony of PW1.
16. In view of the above, this tribunal is of considered opinion that R-1 is guilty of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to the accident in which petitioner sustained grievous injuries. However, the petitioner appears to be contributory to the same as he was driving on the wrong side.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and some contributory negligence of petitioner, which is clearly visible and as such, was responsible not only for this accident, but also for everything that followed thereafter. Accordingly issue no.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 22. Whether the petitioner/ injured is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 7 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:49:40
+0530
18. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident, but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be decided.
19. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this tribunal is required to be 'just'. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the general principals with regard 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 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.
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 8 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:49:47
+0530
(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 "
20. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount of compensation which could be considered to be 'just' in the opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
21. The petitioner has deposed that his medical treatment was cover under the ESI facility and no amount was paid by petitioner. He voluntarily deposed that some part of his salary was deducted towards this ESI facility. The petitioner has not filed any such document, therefore, in the absence of any proof, the petitioner is not entitled to any amount under this head.
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 9 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:49:52
+0530
(ii) Pain and Suffering
22. As per MLC, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The Disability Certificate reflects that the petitioner is a case of post traumatic stiffness of ankle having Permanent Physical Impairment of 7% in relation to right lower limb. It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to injured 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 injured and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of Rs.50,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings during the said period of him treatment and immobility. Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs.50,000/- under this head.
(iii) Loss of Actual Earnings
23. In his affidavit Ex. PW 1/A and his cross examination, the petitioner deposed that he was working a contractual labour in MCD and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. However, he does not have any documentary proof to substantiate the same. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved that he is a matriculate, therefore, considering the fact that minimum wages of matriculate person was near Rs.20,000/-, the income of petitioner is accepted as Rs.20,000/- per month. Keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as his prolonged medical treatment which extended for approximately 2.5 months affecting badly the ability to resume work. As MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 10 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:50:00
+0530
such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs.20,000 x 2.5). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
24. Admittedly, petitioner has suffered 7% Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to his right lower limb. This Tribunal has already held that petitioner is entitled for Rs.20,000/- per month at the relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, DAR reflects that he was aged about 46 years at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of '13' is held applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is not entitled to future prospects as per the observations made by Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, SLP (CIVIL) 25590 of 2014 decided on 31.10.2017.
25. Thus, the loss of future earnings of petitioner due to his above injury and permanent disability comes to is calculated as follows:
S. Head Amount (Rs.) Remarks
No.
1 Monthly Income of injured (A) 20,000
2 Monthly loss of earning (B) 1,400 7% of (A)
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23)
Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 11 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:50:05 +0530
3 Annual Loss of earning (C) 16,800 (B) x 12 =
(C)
4 Multiplier @ 13
5 Total Loss of earnings (D) 2,18,400 (C) x
13(multiplier
) = (D)
6 Add: Future prospects @ 25% 54,600 D x 25%
Total : 2,73,000
(v) Loss of General Amenities and Enjoyment of Life
26. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries and he is suffering from 7% Permanent Physical Impairment in relation to his right lower limb. Considering the aforesaid, it is quite apparent that petitioner would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the said accident, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the above, this Tribunal award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
(vi) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
27. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner incurred Rs.
25,000/- on transportation, Rs.30,000/- on special diet. No document has been placed on record in this regard. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the prolonged period of his medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each under these heads:
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 12 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:50:12
+0530
(vii) Deduction for contributory negligence
28. It is admitted by the petitioner that he was driving on the wrong side of road. As per site plan, the place of the accident is immediately outside the gate of Parijat Apartment. Although, R1 had not cared to look on both side while coming out of gate, If the petitioner had not come from wrong side, the accident could have been avoided. Hence, the petitioner is held 30 % contributory negligence in the claim.
29. Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under : -
S. No. Head Amount
1 Medical Expenses Nil
2 Pain and Suffering 50,000/-
3 Loss of actual earning 50,000/-
4 Loss of future earning due to 2,73,000/-
disability
5 Conveyance, attendant 75,000/-
Charges and Special diet
6 Loss of Amenities and 50,000/-
Enjoyment of Life
Total 3,48,600/-
(30 % of Rs.4,98,000/- contributory
negligence due to driving on wrong
side)
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23)
Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 13 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:50:19
+0530
Issue No.3/Relief
30. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.3,48,600/- (Rupees Three Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Six Hundred only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR i.e. 06.04.2024 till actual payment. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
LIABILITY
31. On the point of liability, an objection has been raised by R-2/ Insurance Company. Ld. Counsel for R-2/ Insurance Company has submitted that the respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without having any valid driving license therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The upshot of the settled legal position on the issue is that respondent no.2/insurance company cannot shake off its liability to pay compensation merely by taking the plea that at relevant point of time, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 without having valid driving license. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs Arti Devi 2025:AHC:14110,MANU/UP/0194/2025 while dwelling on the issue of pay and recovery after the amended Act of 2019 which came into force on 01.04.2022, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that:
"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 MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 14 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02 16:50:24 +0530 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 still 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 MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 15 of 18
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.02.02
16:50:31
+0530
third party risk so long the premium is received and non-payment thereof would absolve the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being passed against it."
32. Hon'ble High Court further dwells on the object of the Act and observing same made following observations:
"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.
33. Further in para 37 it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that:
"37. From the overall discussion made above, it is crystal clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at the first instance would be too wild a proposition and would result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount of compensation through execution proceedings in one way or the other, searching the owner through the process of Court. In such an event, the claimants would face further harassment and MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 16 of 18 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02 16:50:37 +0530 nobody knows that despite a money decree in the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to whether the claimants would ever be able to get the compensation realized through recovery proceedings directly from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent becomes clear and there is nothing to support the insurer's arguments flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus Omissus. The contention advanced on behalf of insurer stands discarded."
34. Hon'ble High Court finally concluded that :
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, MANU/SC/0021/2004 :
2004:INSC:4 : JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly.
35. As per license verification filed by IO in DAR, it shows that the driving license of driver of offending vehicle is not valid w.e.f. 03.04.2022 to 06.01.2024 as the date of accident is 30.11.2023. It shows that, this is clear breach of the insurance policy issued by insurance company. Therefore, in view of the above, respondent No.2/insurance company is liable to pay compensation/Award amount to the claimants/petitioners with a right to recover the same from the respondents No.1.
RELEASE MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23) Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 17 of 18
Digitally
signed by
VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2026.02.02
16:50:43
+0530
36. The entire amount alongwith interest be released to petitioner immediately in his saving bank account no.44338439301, IFSC Code:
SBIN0010323, in State Bank of India, Branch Rohini District Court, Delhi.
37. Respondent no. 2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the Award amount in the SBI, Rohini Court Branch bearing Account No. 40723743243 within 30 days as per above order, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay. Parties are directed to download the digitally signed copy online.
38. 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.
38. Form V and IVB in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
39. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by the Nazir and put up the same on 02.03.2026.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
Digitally signed
ON 02nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 by VIKRAM
Date:
VIKRAM 2026.02.02
16:50:49
+0530
(VIKRAM)
DJ-1+MACT, NORTH WEST,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT Case No. 314/24 (FIR no. 1204/23)
Bhupender Vs. Ritu Sethi & Anr.
Page no. 18 of 18