Delhi District Court
Karan vs Sunil Kumar on 5 July, 2025
MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA, PRESIDING OFFICER,
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 520/19
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-008279-2019
Sh. Ramesh,
S/o Sh. Kalu Ram,
R/o G Block,
N-408 Jhuggi,
Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sunil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kalu,
R/o J-103,
Sector - 2, Bawana,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. M/s. Balaji Sales,
Through its Proprietor Smt. Seema Suri,
W/o Sh. Mukesh Suri,
R/o D-103, Sector - 20,
Noida, UP.
(Registered Owner)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
P-19 & 20, Phase I,
Mayur Vihar,
Pandav Nagar,
Patparganj,
New Delhi.
(Insurer) ........Respondents
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 42
MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
AND
MAC Petition No. 521/19
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-008110-2019
Sh. Karan Kumar,
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar,
R/o H.No. 232,
G Block,
Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sunil Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kalu,
R/o J-103,
Sector - 2, Bawana,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Smt. Seema Suri,
W/o Sh. Tilak Raj Suri,
R/o D-103, Sector - 20,
Noida, UP.
(Registered Owner)
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
P-19 & 20, Phase I,
Mayur Vihar,
Pandav Nagar,
Patparganj,
New Delhi.
(Insurer) ........Respondents
Date of Institution : 27.08.2019
Date of Arguments : 05.07.2025
Date of Award : 05.07.2025
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 42
MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
APPEARENCES
Sh. R.N. Chaudhary, Ld. Counsel for petitioner in both the cases.
Ms. Ranjana, Ld. Counsel for driver(defence struck off vide order
dated 29.11.2019).
Sh. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for registered owner.
Ms. Neeru Garg, Ld. Counsel for insurance co.
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
CONSOLIDATED AWARD:-
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both Detailed
Accident Reports (DARs) with regard to grievous injury sustained by
Ramesh @ Bunty (injured in MACP No. 520/19) and Karan (injured in
MACP No. 521/19) in Motor Vehicular Accident which occurred on
04.05.2019 at 6:00 pm at 12:40 PM at Singhu Border Road, near Toll Tax,
Delhi, involving Tanker bearing registration no. HR38X-6039(offending
vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its
driver(Respondent no.1 herein).
2. Both the DARs were consolidated for the purpose of recording
of respondent's evidence vide order dated 22.08.2024 and MACP No. 520/19
titled as " Ramesh @ Bunty Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors." was treated as the
leading case. Accordingly, the respondent evidence was led on behalf of the
parties in the leading case.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 42
MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. According to DAR filed in both the cases, on 04.05.2019, injured Ramesh @ Bunty alongwith his friend namely Karan Kumar were going to Narela from his residence for his work on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL9SR-9200 which was being driven by Karan Kumar and he was sitting as pillion rider. At about 12:40 PM, when they reached at Singhu Border Road, near Toll Tax, Delhi, one Tanker bearing registration no. HR38X-6039 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from front side(wrong side) and hit against the aforesaid motorcycle with a great force, as a result of which, both the riders of motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained injuries. They both were taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where they were medically examined. FIR No. 176/19 u/s. 279/338 IPC was registered at PS. Narela with regard to the said accident. It is claimed that offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd./respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. The respondent no.1 i.e., driver has failed to file his WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunity. Accordingly, his defence was struck off vide order dated 29.11.2019 in both the cases.
5. In their separate but identical written statements filed in both the cases, the respondent no. 2 i.e. registered owner raised preliminary objections Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 by stating that accident was not caused by the negligence of respondent no. 1 as he was driving his vehicle at a normal speed. It is claimed that the alleged offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3 at the time of accident. It is also claimed that at the time of appointment of respondent no.1, driving licence of respondent no.1 had been seen and his test was also taken before employing him as the driver of the vehicle.
6. In its separate but identical written statement filed in both the cases, the respondent no.3 i.e. insurance company has claimed that the respondent no. 1 was not having any driving licence at the time of accident and he was not authorized to drive a hazardous category vehicle and thus, he was also chargesheeted for offence u/s. 3/181 M.V. Act. It is claimed that driver of the motorcycle was not having vaild driving licence at the time of accident. It is also claimed that both the riders of motorcycle were not wearing helmet at the time of accident and therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it in the name of M/s. Balaji Sales/R2. It has denied the averments made in DAR and prayed for its dismissal.
7. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 520/19 cases by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.11.2019 :-
1) Whether the injured Ramesh @ Bunty suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 04.05.2019 at 12:40 pm at Singhu Border Road , Near Toll Tax, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Narela, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 Sh. Sunil Kumar who was driving Tempo bearing registration no. HR38X-6039, owned by Balaji Sales and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd?
OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
8. From pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed in MACP No. 521/19 cases by Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 29.11.2019 :-
1) Whether the injured Karan suffered injuries in road traffic accident on 04.05.2019 at 12:40 pm at Singhu Border Road, Near Toll Tax, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS. Narela, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Sh. Sunil Kumar who was driving Tempo bearing registration no.
HR38X-6039, owned by Balaji Sales and insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd? OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
9. In order to establish their claim, both the petitioner(s) have examined two witnesses in their respective evidence i.e., PW1 Injured themselves in both cases and PW2 Dr. Pramod Kumar in both cases and their Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 respective evidence was closed vide order dated 30.05.2023. On the other hand, the respondents no. 2 have examined three witnesses i.e., R2W1 Ms. Seema Puri, R2W2 Sh. Mukesh Suri and R2W3 Sh. Ashok Kumar. The respondent no. 3/insurance company has examined two witnesses i.e., R3W1 Ms. Pooja, Administrative Officer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and R3W2 Ms. Anju Verma, Dy. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
10. Arguments addressed by respective counsels heard and considered. DAR alongwith all documents and material relied upon perused carefully. The issue wise determination is as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
11. The onus to prove, the said issue was placed on the petitioner(s)/injured persons. To prove the said issue, petitioner(s) examined PW1 Sh. Ramesh (injured himself) and PW1 Sh. Karan (injured himself) by way their respective affidavits of evidence Ex. PW1/A in both the cases. In their respective evidence, both the aforementioned two witnesses have deposed on the lines of averments made in the DAR.
12. PW1 Sh. Ramesh has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/1(OSR)
2. Original medical treatment Ex.PW1/2(colly)(objected
record to by insurance company)
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 42
MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
3. Original medical bills Ex.PW1/3(colly)(objected
to by insurance company)
4. DAR Ex. PW1/4(colly)
13. PW1 Sh. Karan has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Copy of his Election ID Card Ex. PW1/1(OSR)
and PAN Card
2. Original treatment record Ex.PW1/2(colly)
3. Original medical bills Ex.PW1/3(colly)
4. DAR Ex. PW1/4(colly)
5. His further medical treatment Ex. PW1/5(colly) record
6. Copy of OPD card of Ex. PW1/6(OSR) Kalawati Saran Children Hospital
14. Both the injured i.e., PW1 in their testimonies by way of their respective affidavits (Ex. PW1/A) in both the cases deposed that on 04.05.2019, they both were going to Narela for their work on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL9SR-9200 which was being driven by injured Karan Kumar and injured Ramesh was sitting as pillion rider on it. They further deposed that at about 12:40 PM, when they reached at Singhu Border Road, near Toll Tax, Delhi, offending vehicle i.e., Tanker bearing registration no. HR38X-6039 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from front side(wrong side) and hit Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 against their aforesaid motorcycle with a great force, as a result of which, they both fell down on the road and sustained injuries. They further deposed that they both were taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where they were medically examined. They both categorically deposed that the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver/R1.
15. PW1/Injured Ramesh was cross-examined on behalf of registered owner and insurance company during which he denied the suggestion that the accident in question was head on collision. He deposed that he had seen the offending vehicle from a distance of 5-10 feet prior to the accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not an eyewitness of the accident. He deposed that the accident in question occurred at about 12:40 pm. He denied the suggestion that he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. He deposed that he was not unconscious after the accident. He further deposed that he himself had not called the police after the accident. He further deposed that his statement in respect of his residential address was recorded by the police in the hospital on 04.05.2019. He denied the suggestion that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligently driving of motorcycle by Karan. He further denied the suggestion that Karan was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that Karan was driving his motorcycle at the wrong side of the road.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
16. PW1/Injured Karan was cross-examined on behalf of registered owner and insurance company during which he deposed that he was going to Narela from his residence for work. He further deposed that he reached on the spot of accident within 1- 1:30 hours. He admitted that at the time of accident, he was driving the vehicle. He deposed that he was having driving licence at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not holding driving licence at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that he was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. He deposed that the road on which the accident took place was double road. He denied the suggestion that he was driving his motorcycle on the wrong side. He further denied the suggestion that there was head on collision. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to his own negligence. He deposed that he was conscious after the accident. He denied the suggestion that he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. He deposed that he did not know whether the police seized his helmet or not after the accident as his helmet fell down on the road after the accident. He admitted that he took his treatment from government hospital.
17. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence, material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely Sh. Sunil Kumar has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC & 3/181 M.V. Act by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
18. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place. However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
19. Copy of MLCs (which are also part of criminal case record) of injured persons namely Ramesh @ Bunty and Karan filed would show that they had been removed to SRHC Hospital, Narela, with alleged history of RTA on the date of accident itself i.e., on 04.05.2019 at about 1:20 pm. On their local examination, they were found to have sustained multiple injuries as mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the said document from the side of respondents including insurance company.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that both the petitioners namely Ramesh @ Bunty and Karan had sustained grievous injuries in the Motor Vehicular Accident which has occurred on 04.05.2019 at 6:00 pm at 12:40 PM at Singhu Border Road, near Toll Tax, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. Thus, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2
21. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
22. It has been duly established that both the petitioners namely Ramesh @ Bunty and Karan sustained grievous injuries, as per their respective MLCs and treatment record duly proved, in the road traffic accident which took place on 04.05.2019 at 6:00 pm at 12:40 PM at Singhu Border Road, near Toll Tax, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1/driver, to the extent as discussed herein-above, in Issue no.1. Accordingly, petitioner(s) are entitled for just and fair compensation in the present case.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
23. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation" (2009) 6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges in Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held as under:
"16. "Just compensation" is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and the decisions. While it may not be possible to have mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, and the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation..."
24. These guiding principles for assessment of "just and reasonable compensation" have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been held:-
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 "10. The possession of one's own body is the first and most valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.
Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury cases must be substantial and not token damages....."
11. The general principle which should govern the assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will put him in the same position as he would have been in the same position as he would have been in if he had not sustained injuries".
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced guiding parameters that "the compensation should be just and is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance". Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC) 113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it has been held:-
".....The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach.Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 42
MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum....."
26. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner(s) to just compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters and guidelines as discussed herein-above. The extent and nature of injuries, medical expenses, period of treatment and nature of employment of each of the injured, if any, has distinct facts and therefore, each claim needs to be assessed individually. Therefore, the Award upon assessment of compensation for each injured is being done separately.
Compensation in MACP No. 520/19 (Injured Ramesh @ Bunty) MEDICAL EXPENSES
27. PW1 Sh. Ramesh i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined. Thereafter, he was shifted to BJRM Hospital where he remained admitted from 20.05.2019 till 16.07.2019. He further deposed that during his admission, ORIF with right proxymal tibia plus bone grafting was done by the doctor of said hospital. He further deposed that he was again admitted in the said hospital on 29.08.2019 and discharged on 09.09.2019 and he remained under treatment with this hospital for six months.
28. It is relevant to note that the injured Ramesh has relied upon one medical bill Ex. PW1/3 which was objected by the counsel for insurance Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 company. The petitioner has failed to prove the aforesaid medical bill Ex. PW1/3. In view of the same, no amount is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
29. Petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he was doing private job/labour and used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further deposed that he was not able to continue his work after accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of registered owner and insurance company, he deposed that he had studied upto 8 th class. He further deposed that he was a labour and he did not have any income proof. He further deposed that he did not have any document in respect of his work. He denied the suggestion that neither he was working nor he was earning any amount at the time of accident.
30. The treatment record i.e., Discharge Summary (Ex. PW1/2) of BJRM Hospital of petitioner shows that he was admitted in said hospital on 20.05.2019 and was discharged on 16.07.2019. As per the aforesaid treatment record, the case of petitioner was of fracture both bone. As per the discharge summary (which is also part of Ex. PW1/2), the petitioner was again admitted in BJRM Hospital on 29.08.2019 and was discharged on 09.09.2019. As per the treatment record filed by the petitioner, he lastly visited the aforesaid hospital for treatment on 22.10.2019. Apart from the aforesaid document, the petitioner has failed to file any other treatment record. In the absence of any Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess work in assessing the loss of income. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Apart from this petitioner has also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% in relation to right lower limb. Considering the nature of injuries, treatment record and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 8 months or so including his recovery period.
31. Apart from the bald statement made by PW1 Sh. Ramesh that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove his monthly income at the time of accident in question. Mere bald testimony of PW1 in this regard, would not suffice. The petitioner has also failed to file his educational qualification documents. Thus, his loss of income has to be assessed while taking the income of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 14,468/- per month as on the date of accident which is 04.05.2019. Thus, a sum of Rs. 1,15,744/- (Rs. 14,468/- x 8) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 PAIN AND SUFFERING
32. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non- pecuniary heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as under:-
"15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of decision:
2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-"On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money value, However, compensation which has to be paid must bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment."
33. As already considered, the petitioner suffered fracture both bone and remained incapacitated to resume his work of earnings for a period of Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 about 8 months owing to grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15% in relation to his right lower limb. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, duration of treatment and permanent disability suffered by him, a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
34. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15% in relation to his right lower limb. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries suffered by him and permanent disability suffered by him, I award a notional sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
35. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 15% in relation to his right lower limb. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/-each for special diet and conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for attendant charges to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
36. As already stated above, the petitioner is shown to have sustained 15% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 07.12.2022 (Ex. PW2/1) of Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 Medical Board of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. The said Medical Board assessed the disability of the patient to be permanent in nature which is not likely to improve.
37. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. Pramod Kumar, Medical Officer, Orthopedic, BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 15% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. He deposed that the aforesaid Medical Board assessed the disability of the patient to be permanent in nature which is not likely to improve. He further deposed that the case of petitioner was of post traumatic stiffness ankle right with limb length discrepancy (shortened). He further deposed that due to aforesaid shortening of right lower limb, the petitioner may have or can have right side lurch. During his cross examination on behalf of registered owner, he admitted that the aforesaid petitioner can do any type of work with aforesaid disability. He further deposed that the patient was having right ankle stiffness and shortening of 2.5cm of right lower limb. During his cross- examination on behalf of insurance company, he denied that the disability of the petitioner was not assessed by Disability Board as per guidelines laid down by Ministry of Human Resource and Social Welfare or that disability certificate Ex. PW2/1 had been issued without properly examining the aforesaid patient or merely at his instance.
38. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case including the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner as well as the Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 disability suffered by him, his functional disability is taken as 8% with regard to whole body.
39. In copy of Aadhaar Card of petitioner, his year of birth is mentioned as 1988. The date of accident is 04.05.2019. Thus, the petitioner was aged about 31 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 16 in view of judgment passed in case titled as "Sarla Verma Vs. DTC", 2009 ACJ 1298 SC. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 14,468/- per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 1,157.44p (Rs. 14,468/- x 8/100). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 3,11,119.72p (Rs. 1,157.44p x 12 x 140/100 x 16). Thus, a sum of Rs. 3,11,119.72p is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Loss of income Rs. 1,15,744/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 70,000/-
3. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life
4. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 40,000/-
attendant charges
5. Loss of future income Rs. 3,11,119.72p Total Rs. 5,86,863.72p Rounded off to Rs. 5,87,000/-Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 42
MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 Compensation in MACP No. 521/19 (Injured Karan) MEDICAL EXPENSES
40. PW1 Sh. Karan Kumar i.e. injured himself has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was taken to SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi, where he was medically examined. Thereafter, he was shifted to Lok Nayak Hospital where he remained admitted from 04.05.2019 till 12.05.2019. He further deposed that during his admission, external fixator was applied. He further deposed that he was again admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 03.06.2019 and was discharged on 11.06.2019. He further admitted in the said hospital on 30.01.2020 and was discharged on 01.02.2020.
41. It is relevant to note that the injured Karan Kumar has relied upon medical bills which are Ex. PW1/3(colly). It may be noted here that petitioner has relied upon medical bills to the tune of Rs. 19,281/- only. It is quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry as except mere suggestions, no questions regarding the medical bills were put to the witness. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 19,281/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 LOSS OF INCOME
42. Petitioner has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that he was a daily wager and used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. He further deposed that he was not able to earn anything after his accident. During his cross-examination on behalf of registered owner and insurance company, he deposed that he was illiterate. He further deposed that he was doing the work of Helper. He further deposed that he was earning Rs. 700/- per day. He admitted that he did not have any documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. He denied the suggestion that he was not doing any work at the time of accident.
43. The treatment record i.e., Discharge Slips (Ex. PW1/2 colly) of Lok Nayak Hospital of petitioner shows that he was firstly admitted in said hospital on 04.05.2019 and was discharged on 12.05.2019, secondly on 03.06.2019 and was discharged on 11.06.2019 and thirdly on 30.01.2020 and was discharged on 01.02.2020. As per the aforesaid treatment record, the petitioner has suffered fracture both bone leg right with open grade IIIB. As per the treatment record filed by the petitioner, he had received treatment from various hospitals mainly from Lady Harding Medical College and Smt. S.K. Hospital, Connaught Place and he lastly visited the aforesaid hospital for treatment on 22.10.2021. It is apparent from the treatment record relied upon by the petitioner that his treatment continued for a considerable period. In the Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it would necessarily involve some guess work in assessing the loss of income. It can not be overlooked that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. Apart from this petitioner has also suffered permanent disability to the extent of 83% in relation to right lower limb. Considering the nature of injuries, treatment record and permanent disability suffered by the petitioner, it is presumed that he would not have been able to work at least for a period of 3 years or so including his recovery period.
44. Apart from the bald statement made by PW1 Sh. Karan that he was earning Rs. 700/- per day, no definite evidence whatsoever has been brought on record to prove his daily/monthly income at the time of accident in question. Mere bald testimony of PW1 in this regard, would not suffice. The petitioner has also failed to file his educational qualification documents. Thus, his loss of income has to be assessed while taking the income of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of an unskilled person were Rs. 14,468/- per month as on the date of accident which is 04.05.2019. Thus, a sum of Rs. 5,20,848/- (Rs. 14,468/- x 8) is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 PAIN AND SUFFERING
45. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as " Vinod Kumar Bitoo Vs. Roshni & Ors." passed in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 518/2010 decided on 05.07.12, has held as under:-
" It is difficult to measure the pain and suffering in terms of money which is suffered by a victim on account of serious injuries caused to him in a motor vehicle accident. Since the compensation is required to be paid for pain and suffering an attempt must be made to award compensation which may have some objective relation with the pain and suffering underwent by the victim. For this purpose, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts normally consider the nature of injury; the part of the body where the injuries were sustained, surgeries, if any, underwent by the victim, confinement in the hospital and the duration of treatment".
46. Injured himself as PW1 has deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit(Ex PW1/A) that he has suffered grievous injuries and 80% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb due to the accident in question. Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings and mental shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the medical treatment record of petitioner available on record and the nature of injuries suffered by him including permanent disability to the extent of 83% suffered by him, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
47. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the accident. His treatment record would also show that he had suffered grievous injuries and 83% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb due to the accident in question. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after the accident in question, during rest of his life and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him, his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
48. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Apart from this, the petitioner is also shown to have sustained permanent disability to the extent of 83% in relation to his right lower limb. Thus, he would have taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is considered reasonable to award a sum of Rs. 15,000/-each for special diet and conveyance charges and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for attendant charges to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME
49. The petitioner is shown to have sustained 83% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. Same is quite evident from Disability Certificate dated 20.07.2022 of Medical Board of Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi.
50. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. Pramod Kumar, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi, the petitioner was found to have suffered 83% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb in terms of Disability Certificate (Ex. PW2/1). He deposed that the said disability was permanent in nature and thus, reassessment was not recommended. He further deposed that Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 due to the aforesaid disability suffered by the patient, he would have difficulty in doing all the activities as mentioned at S.No. 1 to 8 as mentioned on calculation charge Ex. PW2/2. During his cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, he admitted that he was not the member of Disability Board who had issued the disability certificate. He deposed that the members of Disability Board had considered the medical treatment record of the patient at the time of assessing his disability. He deposed that he could not tell the functional disability of aforesaid injured in relation to whole body. He denied the suggestion that the disability suffered by the injured has no co- relation with the injuries sustained by him due to the accident. He further denied the suggestion that the disability of the aforesaid patient was not assessed by Disability Board as per the guidelines laid down by Ministry of Social Welfare & Justice or that disability certificate Ex. PW2/1 had been issued without properly examining the aforesaid patient or merely at the instance of the patient.
51. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was labour by profession at the time of accident. It is further argued that since the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 83% in relation to his right lower limb, he would never be able to do any type of work as his avocation involves proper movement of his all limbs and thus, the loss of earning capacity be taken as 100% in relation to whole body.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
52. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of insurance company that the disability of the petitioner is not that much which could amount to 100% loss of earning capacity.
53. With regard to assessment of functional disability in the accident cases, I am guided by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., CIVIL APPEAL NO.8981 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10383 of 2007) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 30 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less.
54. Now coming back to the facts of present case it is noted that the petitioner was stated to be working as Labour and he has suffered 83% permanent disability in relation to his right lower limb. PW-2 Dr. Pramod Kumar, Medical Officer, Orthopedic, BSA Hospital has deposed that the disability of the petitioner is permanent in nature and same is not likely to improve. It is pertinent to mention here that any type of work requires physical dexterity in limbs and digits to operate hand and power driven tools and equipment commonly used in the profession of fabrication, physical ability to lift, carry and ability to continually walk, stand, climb, stoop, bend, kneel, reach in all directions, etc. It may be noted here that petitioner was stated to be working as Labour at the time of accident and it is quite obvious that for any labour, proper movement of the all limbs are very necessary which is not possible in the case of petitioner due to the permanent disability suffered by him in the accident. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, 83% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower limb is going to adversely affect his avocation. In view of case (supra), I am of the considered opinion that due to disability suffered (permanent physical Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 31 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 impairment in relation to his right lower limb) in the present accident, the petitioner will suffer 50% of loss of earning capacity. Hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is considered as 42% towards loss of earning capacity.
55. In copy of Voter I Card (Ex. PW1/1) of petitioner, his date of birth is mentioned as 15.02.1995. The date of accident is 04.05.2019. In view of said document, his age was about 23 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the appropriate multiplier would be 18 in view of pronouncement made by Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case titled as "National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.", passed in SLP(Civil) No. 25590/14 decided on 31.10.17. The monthly income of petitioner has been taken as Rs. 14,468/- per month as discussed above. Thus, the loss of monthly future income would be Rs. 6,076.56p (Rs. 14,468/- x 42/100 ). The total loss of future income would be Rs. 18,37,551.74p (Rs. 6,076.56 x 12 x 18 x 140/100). Thus, a sum of Rs. 18,37,551.74p is awarded in favour of petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
56. Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that the chances of marriage prospect of petitioner have decreased considerably due to his permanent physical impairment. He therefore urged that reasonable amount of compensation should be awarded to him under this head. Per contra, Ld. Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 32 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that there is no evidence led on this aspect during the course of inquiry and thus, no amount of compensation should be awarded under this head.
57. After considering the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides and facts of present case, it is considered that the limitation in the normal functioning of the injured is likely to have adverse impact on his marriage prospects. Accordingly, the injured is entitled to be compensated under the head of loss of marriage prospects. Hence, notional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded to him under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 19,281/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 5,20,848/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 2,50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 2,00,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 50,000/-
attendant charges
6. Loss of future income Rs. 18,37,551.74p
7. Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 29,77,680.74p Rounded off to Rs. 29,78,000/-
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 33 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
58. This brings me down to the next question as to who, out of the respondents, are liable to pay the compensation amount so assessed herein above. Ld counsel for insurance company vehemently argued that DL in favour of respondent no. 1 was found to be fake and thus, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. For the said purpose, Ld counsel heavily relied upon the testimonies of R3W1 Ms. Pooja and R3W2 Ms. Anju Verma, both officials from the office of insurance company. Both the aforesaid witnesses have deposed on the similar lines to the fact that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle without valid and effective driving licence. It is further deposed that the DL filed by the respondent no. 1 was fake. They have relied upon copy of insurance policy Ex. R3W1/2; notice u/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex. R3W1/3; Postal receipts qua the service of said notice Ex. R3W1/4 & Ex. R3W1/5; Internet tracking reports Ex. R3W1/6 & Ex. R3W1/7; DL verification report filed by the IO Ex. R3W1/8; Copy of Investigator Report Ex. R3W2/1 and copy of letter dated 20.09.2024 issued by the office of RTO, Barabanki, UP Ex. R3W2/2.
59. Per contra, Ld counsel for registered owner/insured vehemently argued that there was valid and effective DL in favour of respondent no. 1 at the time of accident in question and thus, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount. Alternatively, he argued that the insured had taken all the relevant precautions at the time of employing respondent no. 1 as driver in respect of the offending vehicle and had duly checked the DL produced by R-1. For the said purpose, he relied upon the testimonies of Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 34 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 R2W1 Ms. Seema Suri and R2W2 Sh. Mukesh Suri. He therefore, urged that no liability should be fastened upon insured to pay the compensation amount.
60. At this juncture, it would be relevant to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of relevant witnesses in order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides.
61. R3W1 and R3W2, Officials of Insurance Company have deposed in their respective evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A & Ex. R3W2/A that DL No. UP-41-20090006379 in the name of respondent no. 1 was found fake after investigation. During cross-examination on behalf of owner, R3W1 admitted that the company had not verified DL of driver Ex. R2W1/4. She volunteered that the report has already been filed by the IO.
62. During cross-examination on behalf of registered owner, R3W2 has deposed that she had copy of email dated 02.09.2024 by which the investigator in the present case was appointed. She further deposed that she can show the panel list of investigators at Barabanki, UP. She admitted that on that day, she had not brought any panel list. She further deposed that concerned branch office of insurance company hires the investigator from the panel list. She denied the suggestion that company Rahul SK Associates LLP was not on their penal list. She has produced the copy of email dated 02.09.2024 with regard to appointment of investigator by the insurance Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 35 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 company for verification of DL of driver/R1 and marked the same as Mark X. She denied the suggestion that report Ex. R3W2/2 and document Ex. R3W2/1 were false and fabricated documents. She further denied the suggestion that driving licence of respondent no.1 was valid as on the date of accident. She deposed that she had not filed any receipt of visit of the investigator at RTO, Barabanki, however, she can file the same. She denied the suggestion that no verification with regard to DL of respondent no. 1 was got conducted by the insurance company in the present matter.
63. R2W1 Smt. Seema Suri, is the proprietor/owner of M/s. Balaji Sales which is the registered owner/insured of offending vehicle. She deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. R2W1/A that respondent no. 1 was appointed as a driver by her and her husband in the year 2017. She further deposed that before appointment of respondent no. 1, she and her husband had seen the original driving licence of respondent no. 1 and thereafter, they had taken the driving test of respondent no. 1.
64. During her cross examination on behalf of petitioner, R2W1 admitted that respondent no. 1 was working as driver with them. She further admitted that she was aware about the present FIR registered at PS. Narela. She further admitted that she was not present at the spot when the accident took place. She deposed that the driver had told her that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of petitioner. She deposed that she had not filed any complaint before any authority regarding false implication of the Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 36 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 driver. She denied the suggestion that she had not filed any such complaint as she was aware that the driver was at fault. She denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to the negligence of Sunil Kumar.
65. During her cross-examination on behalf of insurance company, R2W1 deposed that she did not get verified the DL of Sunil Kumar from the concerned authority. She further deposed that she did not remember whether police officials asked for the DL of driver from her. She denied the suggestion that she did not take any driving test as she was unable to drive. She volunteered that the driving test was taken by her, her husband and other driving staff. She deposed that she could not say whether the DL Ex. R2W1/2 was fake or not. She further deposed that she had not checked the DL of the driver online to confirm its veracity. She admitted that she was aware that as per insurance policy, the driver has to have a valid DL. She denied the suggestion that despite her awareness about fake DL of driver, she allowed him to drive. She denied the suggestion that insurance was not liable to give any compensation on account of fake DL.
66. So far as, the testimony of R2W2 who is husband of owner of respondent no. 2 is concerned, he has deposed on the similar lines of R2W1 and thus, the same is not discussed.
67. No doubt, it is established from the testimony of R3W1 & R3W2 i.e. the officials from the office of insurance company that DL issued Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 37 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 in favour of respondent no. 1 was fake but, still the insurance company cannot be allowed to escape from its liability to pay the compensation amount in view of categorical statement made by R2W1 who is proprietor of respondent no. 2/insured that she had taken all necessary precautions and adequate care that driver /respondent no. 1 had valid driving license at the time of employing him as driver. The insurance company could not discredit her testimony during the cross-examination.
68. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as " Lal Chand Vs. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd" reported at 2006 (3) T.A.C. 321 (SC) has held that where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving license which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the license has infact been issued by a Competent Authority or not. The owner would then take test of the driver and if he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver.
69. In another matter titled as " National Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh & Ors." reported at 2004 (3) SCC 297, Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order to avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. In the present case, the insurance co has failed to prove the same during the course of enquiry.
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 38 of 42MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025
70. The aforesaid legal position has been reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in decisions in the matters titled as " National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumari & Ors." reported at 2016 ACJ 2550 and "
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Shakuntala Devi & Ors." reported at 2016 ACJ 1798.
71. In a recent judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi & Ors.", SLP (C). No. 19992 of 2023, decided on 30.10.2023, the Hon'ble Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
xxxx
15. As already pointed out supra, once a seemingly valid driving licence is produced by a person employed to drive a vehicle, unless such licence is demonstrably fake on the face of it, warranting any sensible employer to make inquiries as to its genuineness, or when the period of the licence has already expired, or there is some other reason to entertain a genuine doubt as to its validity, the burden is upon the insurance company to prove that there was a failure on the part of the vehicle owner in carrying out due diligence apropos such driving licence before employing that person to drive the vehicle. Presently, no evidence has been placed on record whereby an inference could be drawn that the deceased vehicle owner ought to have gotten verified Ujay Pal's driving licence. Therefore, it was for the petitioner-insurance company to prove willful breach on the part of the said vehicle owner. As no such exercise was undertaken, the petitioner-insurance company would have no right to recover the Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 39 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 compensation amount from the present owners of the vehicle. The impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court holding to that effect, therefore, does not brook interference either on facts or in law.
xxxxxx
72. Having judged the facts of the present on the touch stone of the legal position discussed above and in view of the reasons given herein above, it is held that the insurance co has failed to prove that there was fundamental wilful breach in the terms and conditions of insurance policy on the part of insured or that it is entitled to recovery rights against the insured. Consequently, it is held that insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount so determined herein above to the petitioners.
ISSUE NO. 3 RELIEF
73. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is passed after relying upon judgment "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby Raksha & Ors.", MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of interest .
a) A sum of Rs. 5,87,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 520/19 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e. 27.08.2019 (except for the period of delay w.e.f. 08.11.2021 to 30.05.2023) till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 29,78,000/- (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition No. 521/19 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 40 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 petition i.e. 27.08.2019 (except for the period of delay w.e.f. 08.11.2021 to 30.05.2023) till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
APPORTIONMENT
74. It is pertinent to mention here that statements of petitioner(s) in both the cases in terms of Clause 29 MCTAP were recorded on 08.11.2024. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that in MACP No. 520/19, entire awarded amount alongwith interest is directed to be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account no. 40972986134, State Bank of India, A Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, having IFSC Code SBIN0004840, as per rules.
75. In MACP No. 521/19, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) shall be immediately released to the petitioner through his bank account no. 520402010277824 with Union Bank of India, Sector - 9, Rohini, Delhi, having IFSC Code UBIN00552046 and remaining amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 30,000/- each for one month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative interest. The said FDRs be released to the said petitioner on the monthly basis as aforesaid.
76. Respondent no. 3/United India Insurance Co. Ltd., being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the entire award amount in the Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 41 of 42 MACP Nos. 520/19 & 521/19; FIR No. 176/19; PS. Narela DOD: 05.07.2025 aforesaid bank accounts of the claimants as aforesaid, within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in terms of directions passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled "Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.", S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020, DOD:18.03.2025.
77. Concerned Manager of petitioner's bank is directed to release the amount to the petitioner(s) as aforesaid, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. He is further directed to keep the remaining amount in fixed deposit, if any, in terms of aforesaid directions and send compliance report to this Court. He is also directed to ensure that no loan, advance or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioners and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners are also directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition No. 521/19, as per the rules.
Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA MANCHANDA
MANCHANDA Date:
Announced in the open 2025.07.05
15:19:38 +0545
Court on 05.07.2025
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Ramesh @ Bunty & Karan Vs. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Page 42 of 42