Delhi District Court
Dar-Aman vs Mohit Gautam And Ors on 2 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.: 449/24
CNR No. DLSH01-004328-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Aman
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
R/o H No. P-27, Main 33 feet Road,
O-Block, P Phase-4, Shiv Mandir Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
........ (Petitioner/injured)
Vs.
1. Sh. Mohit Gautam
S/o Sh. Mahender Dutt Gautam
R/o H No. F-7/2, East Jyoti Nagar, SHD,
Mandoli, Delhi.
.... (driver)
2. Sh. Mahender Dutt Gautam
S/o Sh. Shiv Charan Lal
R/o H No. F-7/2, East Jyoti Nagar, SHD,
Mandoli, Delhi.
.... (owner)
3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
C-1, 3ed floor, New Krshna Park,
Janakpuri Metri Station, Delhi.
.... (Insurer)
... Respondents
Date of institution of DAR petition : 12.07.2024
Date of Arguments : 02.02.2026
Date of Award : 02.02.2026
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioner : Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma
For respondent no. 1 & 2 : Gaurav Tyagi
MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 1 of 21
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02
17:04:15
+0530
For respondent no. 3 : Sh. Rajesh Goel
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the DAR treated as MACT
claim petition bearing no. 449/24, under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, filed for the petitioner and against the respondents as
mentioned in the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the petition are that on 04.03.2024, at about 11:00 pm, petitioner Aman was going to his clinic on a motorycle bearing registration no. DL5SAL-7275. It has been alleged that when he reached on the Railway flyover, Nand Nagri, within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, a Car (make Swift Dzire) bearing registration no. DL5CQ-3360 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), came at a very high speed and hit the aforesaid motorcycle of the injured with a great force from the back side. It has been further alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no. 1 (R1) herein, at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions at the time of the accident. Allegedly, the above-said Aman fell down on the road after being hit by the offending vehicle and he sustained grievous injuries. The injured was thereon immediately taken to GTB hospital, for his treatment, where his MLC was prepared vide MLC No. B/1033/16/24. An FIR in this regard was also registered vide FIR no. 0166/24, for the offences u/s 279/338/427 IPC, at PS Nand Nagri, Delhi. The present DAR petition thereon came to be filed in due course for the petitioner and against the respondents on 12.07.2024.
WS / Reply of Respondents
MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 2 of 21
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02
17:04:23
+0530
2. In their joint WS filed by respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, it has been contended that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The respondents nevertheless stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. respondent no. 03 (R3), at the time of the accident, vide insurance policy No. 091792323110060532 with its validity from 30.12.2023 to 29.12.2024. However, the respondents no. 01 & 02 denied all the allegations against them and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed its separate detailed written statement cum offer of settlement, wherein it has been admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide insurance policy no.991792323110060532, in the name of Sh. Mahender Dutt Gautam i.e. R2 herein, with its validity from 30.12.2023 to 29.12.2024.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 23.01.2025, as under:-
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle no. DL-5CQ-3360 by respondent no. 1 on 04.03.2024 at about 11:00 pm at Railway Flyover, Mandoli, Nand Nagri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, Delhi ? Opp.
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation , if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove his case, petitioner Aman examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/1, wherein MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 3 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:04:27 +0530 he reiterated the contents of the DAR petition and relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1. Ex. PW1/1 (colly) Copy of Aadhar card and PAN card of (OSR) deponent
2. Ex. PW1/2 (colly) Copy of educational documents of the deponent
3. Ex. PW1/3 (colly) Copy of DAR
4. Ex.PW1/4 (colly) Copy of medical documents and bills
5. Ex.PW1/5 (OSR) Copy of driving license of the deponent He was cross-examined and discharged.
6. In order to prove his case, the petitioner also examined Dr. Amit Bagra, Sr. Resident, Department of Neurosurgery, GTB Hospital, Delhi as PW-2. He deposed that the petitioner Aman has suffered Nil disability for his neurosurgery side and proved on record disability certificate as Ex. PW2/1. He was cross examined and discharged.
7. The petitioner did not examine any other witness and PE stood closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.07.2025, in view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioner recorded in this regard.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
8. The respondents did not examine any witness and RE stood closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.11.2025.
9. Final arguments heard. File perused.
Issue wise findings Issue no.1 Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle no. DL-5CQ-3360 by MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 4 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02 17:04:32 +0530 respondent no. 1 on 04.03.2024 at about 11:00 pm at Railway Flyover, Mandoli, Nand Nagri, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nand Nagri, Delhi ? Opp.
10. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of probabilities. 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors, 2011 (1) SCR 1906 (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.
11. Herein the present case, the petitioner has examined himself as the star witness to show that the R-1 being the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in his driving of the offending vehicle and that injuries were caused to him on account of the accident in question. It has MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 5 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:04:36 +0530 been specifically stated by the PW-1 that he was hit by the Car being driven by R-1 from the back side. The said assertions made by the petitioner while deposing as PW-1 have remained unimpeached despite his extensive cross examination by the respondents. The version put forth by the petitioner while deposing as PW-1 is corroborated by the findings of the police as mentioned in the FIR, Site plan, seizure memos, mechanical inspection report and charge sheet u/s 173 Cr.P.C., which have been proved on record as part of DAR Ex. PW1/3 (colly). Herein the present case, the fact that the offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle of the petitioner from the backside is ipso-facto sufficient proof of rash and negligent act on part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. Furthermore, respondent no.1 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle respondent no.2 i.e. the owner of offending vehicle and respondent no. 3 ie insurance company, have neither impeached the testimony of PW-1 nor they have led any defence evidence to substantiate their claim that the accident was caused due to any fault of the injured or that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The evidence of the star witness in this case i.e. PW-1 on the aspect of rash and negligent act of respondent no. 1 while driving the offending vehicle, has remained unimpeached and his testimony has to be accepted on its face value itself as the same has successfully stood the test of cross-examination.
13. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an accused in case FIR No. 166/24, PS Nand Nagri, for the offences u/s 279/338/427 IPC is also a strong circumstance to support the above said testimony of PW-1 on these issues. The copies of FIR, Site plan, report u/s MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 6 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:04:40 +0530 173 Cr.PC, mechanical inspection report and postmortem report, brought on record as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) also corroborate the oral testimony of PW-1. Moreover, the position of law in this regard has been made clear in the case of "National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha Rana", 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors.", 2014 (2) Tac 846 Del , that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet under Section 279/304-A/337 IPC against the driver have been proved, then, the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the Learned Tribunal. The position of law has been recently reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr." arising out of SLP (C ) No. 10351/2019, wherein it has been held that:-
"It is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 7 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.02
17:04:44
+0530
14. Besides the above, respondent no. 1 namely Mohit Gautam was the best witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi).
15. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending vehicle being driven by R-1 at the relevant time had indeed hit the petitioner thus resulting into grievous injuries being caused to the petitioner.
16. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) hit the motorcycle of the petitioner with a great force. In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the injured or any other such person, the only inference possible in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to the injuries to Aman.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds that the injured Aman suffered grievous injuries on account of neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 8 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:04:47 +0530 issue at hand is thus hereby decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner accordingly.
Issue no. (ii)
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation , if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP.
18. In view of the finding on Issue no. 1, petitioner Aman is hereby held entitled to compensation being the injured victim in the road accident.
However, the quantum of compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical injury : he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
19. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
"Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may, include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 9 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02 17:04:52 physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment, hardship, frustration and mental stress in life."
20. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced as under:
5. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the 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 the 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.
6. 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:MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 10 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:04:57 +0530
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of temporary disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to 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 temporary disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
21. As per the medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner / injured Aman, the latter has sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in question in this case.
Nature of Injuries: As per the medical documents brought on record by the petitioner, the latter suffered "closed fracture lateral malleolus side with no DNVD and laceration over his forehead and tenderness in his shoulder and knee". The injuries suffered by the petitioner have been reported to have resulted into temporary locomotor disability of 23% in relation to right lower limb. However, it has been reported in the disability certificate Ex. PW2/1 that the afore-said disability is temporary and is likely to improve with reassessment recommended after a period of 6 months.
MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 11 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.02
17:05:00
+0530
Disability, if any: As per the aforementioned disability certificate, the petitioner has suffered temporary disability of 23% in relation to right lower limb. The petitioner claims to be working as an Assistant in a Dental clinic and was reportedly getting salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month and as such he needs fully functional limbs to continue his profession for earning his livelihood. However, the petitioner has failed to get his disability reassessed after issuance of the disability certificate on 15.03.2025. Nevertheless, the fracture of lateral malleolus generally heals with full return to normal activities in about 8 months and keeping in view the young age of the petitioner herein, the Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner will not suffer a functional disability of more than 5% in relation to his right lower limb in the present case. Therefore, keeping in view the said nature of injuries and the temporary disability suffered by the petitioner as aforesaid, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner will suffer a functional disability of 5% and hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is hereby assessed to be 5%.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
22. In the present case, as per the material brought on record, the petitioner / injured has undergone entire treatment at GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi where he remained admitted for his treatment from 04.03.2024 to 05.03.2024. The petitioner has also taken subsequent treatment from the OPD of the same hospital. Further, in regard to the treatment undergone by him, petitioner / injured Aman has deposed that his entire treatment was from Govt. Hospital i.e. GTB and the treatment in Govt Hospital in Delhi is free of cost. At the same time, in regard to the treatment undergone by him, petitioner / injured Aman has filed some bills for his treatment from different pharmacies/medicos and the bills for his MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 12 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:05:05 +0530 medicines as per the prescription slip of his treatment. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has even filed the bill for his hair transplant and for spectacles claiming that the same was borne by him due to the injuries suffered in the accident in question. In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention that the said bills are not related to the injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident in question and there is no prescription of such hair transplant or spectacle on record. The petitioner while deposing as PW1 has himself admitted during his cross-examination that he has not filed any treatment or prescription for skin treatment, hair transplant and that the doctor who had given sutures on his head after the accident did not clear any hair from the sides of his forehead or head before giving the sutures. The PW1 has also admitted that he is wearing the spectacles for weak eyes and myopia which is a natural process and not due to the accidental injuries. In view thereof, the Tribunal does not deem it fit to grant the cost of hair transplant and the spectacles to the petitioner, while the remaining cost of remaining treatment is almost Nil as the petitioner has taken his entire treatment from a government hospital and the same is free of cost.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
23. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner / injured Aman suffered grievous injuries. In these circumstances, the petitioner/injured must have visited the hospital/doctors for his treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. In the present case, the petitioner must have undergone treatment for about two months from the date of accident as is apparent from his treatment record. In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 13 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02 17:05:09 +0530 Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance charges. Further, in view of the above- said grievous injuries suffered by him, the petitioner / injured must have needed special diet for a similar period to have a fast and proper recovery. Hence, the petitioner / injured is hereby awarded Rs.15,000/- towards expenses for special diet.
LOSS OF INCOME
24. In the present case, the petitioner / injured stated that at the time of accident, he was working as an Assistant in a Dental clinic and was reportedly getting salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, the petitioner has failed to bring any documentary proof in this regard. The petitioner has brought on record his Senior School Certificate to show that he was educated upto 12th standard. Therefore, the minimum wages for a "clerical matriculate" in Delhi during the relevant period (04.03.2024) i.e. Rs. 21,215/- per month, is hereby taken as criteria for calculating the loss of income to the petitioner / injured in this case. In these circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner was taking treatment from hospitals multiple times in relation to his injuries spanning over 02 months and also considering the nature of injury he would have taken at least 02 months time for recovery, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 21,215/- X 2 months= Rs. 42,430/- under the head Loss of Income during the treatment.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
25. The petitioner / injured Aman has not deposed about keeping an attendant or spending any money on an attendant during the time of his treatment for the injuries suffered by him on account of incident in MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 14 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:05:14 +0530 question. Neither any attendant has been examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to any such attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner / injured in this case. However, considering the nature of injuries, treatment and the prolonged recovery period, the petitioner must have required the services of attendant for about 02 months. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner / injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his family members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Lalita (AIR 1981 Delhi
558), it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members. Further, the petitioner must have spent atleast Rs. 5,000/- per month if he had an attendant. In these circumstances, the petitioner shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. 5,000 X 2 months) towards attendant charges.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
26. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain and sufferings, the following factors have to be taken into account:-
(a) Nature of injury (b) Parts of body where injuries occurred (c) Surgeries, if any (d) Confinement in hospital (e) Duration of the treatment
27. In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered 23 % temporary disability in relation to right lower limb, but, the same will not render him as 100% disabled person for several jobs and day to day activities of life. However, undergoing the operation for the injuries suffered by the petitioner MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 15 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02 17:05:19 +0530 would have caused him unimaginable pain and sufferings. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5649-51 of 2012), the petitioner / injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain and suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner / injured cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money as no amount of money can be substitute for the lost function of a limb, but nevertheless, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- is hereby awarded to petitioner towards the head "pain and sufferings".
LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES
28. The petitioner / injured Aman has claimed that he has suffered loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The petitioner / injured was about 20 years 6 months old at the time of accident and has suffered grievous injuries. His temporary disability would hinder his daily activities as well as his enjoyment of life. Loss of ability to indulge in physical activity is also likely to adversely affect his overall health. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner / injured is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as just and fair compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
29. The petitioner in this case happened to be 20 years 6 months of age and was unmarried at the time of the incident. The petitioner/injured has MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 16 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:05:23 neither suffered any such injury which might cause loss of marriage prospects nor he has claimed the loss of marriage prospects in any manner. Therefore, no amount is granted to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME / PROSPECTS
30. In the present case, as per medical record, petitioner / injured Kuldeep is a case of "closed fracture lateral malleolus side with no DNVD and laceration over his forehead and tenderness in his shoulder and knee " and has temporary physical impairment of 23% in relation to right lower limb and has received treatment for about 2 months. As discussed above, the petitioner's income is assessed as Rs. 21,215/- per month at the time of accident and it has already been held that the injuries suffered by the petitioner would result in 5% functional disability in pursuing the profession of Assistant in Dental clinic by the petitioner. Further in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 (13) SCALE 12), the petitioner is also entitled to future prospects.
AGE: As per his Aadhar card and PAN card on record Ex. PW1/1 (colly) the petitioner was born on 30.08.2003. Thus, at the time of accident, he was about 20 years 6 months old. Further in terms of the principles laid down in the case Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 2104), a multiplier of 25 would be applicable to the present case. Hence, he will be entitled to future prospects @ 40% as he was below 40 years old at the time of accident and was self employed. Therefore, the loss of future prospects / income is calculated as:
Minimum Wages Rs. 21,215/- X 40% (Future Prospects) Rs. 8,486 MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 17 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02 17:05:27 +0530 Rs. 21,215/- + Rs. 8,486/- Rs. 29,701/-
Rs. 22,275/- X 5% (Disability) Rs. 2,970/- Rs. 1485.05/- X 12 X 18 (Multiplier) Rs. 3,20,770/-
Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,20,770/- under this head.
31. The break-up of compensation that has been awarded to petitioner/ injured Aman is tabulated as below:-
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.)
1 Medicines and Treatment 00.00
2 Conveyance 15,000.00
3 Special Diet 15,000.00
4 Loss of income 42,430.00
5 Attendant Charges 10,000.00
6 Pain and Sufferings 20,000.00
7 Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities 10,000.00
8 Compensation for mental and physical 10,000.00
shock
9 Loss of marriage prospects 00.00
10 Loss of future income / prospects 3,20,770.00
Total 4,43,200.00
LIABILITY
32. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 Mohit Gautam is the principal principal tort feasor being the driver of the offending vehicle, while the respondent no. 2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending vehicle for the acts of his employee i.e. driver. Herein, it is MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 18 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02 17:05:31 +0530 pertinent to note that the respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company, has specifically admitted in its written statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident with respondent no. 3, vide policy bearing no. 991792323110060532, in the name of Sh. Mahender Dutt Gautam i.e. R2 herein, with its validity from 30.12.2023 to 29.12.2024. At the same time, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has failed to bring on record or to prove any breach of the terms or conditions of the said insurance policy by the respondent no. 1 & 2 in any manner.
33. Hence, on the basis of entire above stated facts and circumstances and discussion of evidence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent no.3 i.e. insurance company, is liable to pay the entire compensation to the petitioners on behalf of respondent no. 1 & 2 without any recovery rights.
RELIEF
34. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioner is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.4,43,200/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fourty Three Thousand Two Hundred only) along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of DAR petition till its deposition by the R3/insurance company. However, it is directed that the amount of interim award alongwith waiver of interest, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER
35. Finally, out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner Sh. Aman is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 4,43,200/- out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- is directed MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 19 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:05:35 +0530 to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in the form of 20 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 15,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 20 months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. Remaining amount of Rs.1,43,200/- and the interest component to be paid by the respondent no. 3 is directed to be released into his savings account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by him as per his volition.
36. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the award amount with interest @ 8% per annum till date with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioner in his bank account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
37. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Copy of this award alongwith one MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 20 of 21 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.02 17:05:39 +0530 photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and necessary compliance.
Announced in open Court Digitally
On this 02th Day of February, 2026 signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.02
17:05:43
+0530
(HARUN PRATAP)
PO (MACT), SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 449/24 DAR- Aman Vs. Mohit Gautam and Ors Page 21 of 21