Delhi District Court
Gaffar vs Vinesh Kumar on 24 March, 2026
Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 1 of36
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPIKA SINGH, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 404/17
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-004022-2017
LRs of Mohd. Gaffar:-
1 Jarina Khatun (wife of deceased)
R/o Ward no. 7, Rampur Post,
Jamalpur Thana Gogri, Rampur
Khagaria, Bihar-851203.
2. Sarwar Alam (son of deceased)
R/o Ward no. 7, Rampur Post,
Jamalpur Thana Gogri, Rampur
Khagaria, Bihar-851203.
3. Mohd. Gurfan (son of deceased)
R/o CN-770, Village Wazirabad,
Delhi.
4. Mohd Ashif Alam (son of deceased)
R/o Ward no. 7, Rampur Post,
Jamalpur Thana Gogri, Rampur
Khagaria, Bihar-851203.
5. Saba Pravin (daughter of deceased)
D/o Mohd Gaffar
w/o Mohd. Sarbar, R/o Marar, Dakshini,
Ward no. 10, Marar, District Khagaria,
Bihar-851205.
........ Petitioners/claimants
Versus
1. Vinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Ratan
R/o 261/4, Aman Vihar, D Block,
Suleman Nagar, Kirari, Delhi.
....... Driver/R1
MACT No. 404/17
Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 2 of36
2. Bal Govind S/o Sh. Heera Lal
R/o 261/4, Aman Vihar, D Block,
Suleman Nagar, Kirari, Delhi.
.....Owner/R2
3. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Office at 9, 302 N.N. Mall, Near
M2K Cinema, Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi.
......Insurance co. /R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 22.04.2017
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 19.03.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.03.2026
FORM - V
1. COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED
PROCEDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
AS PER FORMAT REFERRED IN THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN
FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs. JAIBIR SINGH &
ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 11.10.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 22.04.2017
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 25.10.2017
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not mentioned
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan
Magistrate
MACT No. 404/17
Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 3 of36
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 22.04.2017
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 25.10.2017
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the 22.04.2017
claimants
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or Yes
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 25.10.2017
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Sanjay
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Kumar
Company.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company Legal offer not
admitted the liability? If so, whether the filed.
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
MACT No. 404/17
Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 4 of36
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to 25.10.2017
the offer of the Insurance Company .
18. Date of the Award 24.03.2026
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 01.02.2025
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not to issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 30.05.2025,
produced the passbook of their saving 12.01.2026
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner-Jarina
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Khatun bank
with IFSC Code account No.
32938099961
with SBI,
Jamalpur Gogri
Branch, IFSC
No. is
SBIN0003790
Petitioner-Sarwar
Alam-446480672
02,
Petitioner- Saba
Parvin-44390454
MACT No. 404/17
Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 5 of36
166 with SBI,
District Court
Rohini, Near
Antriksh
Apartment,Delhi,
The IFSC No. of
the both the
accounts is
SBIN0010323.
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near their place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain her/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim proceedings, have emanated from Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as DAR), as filed on 22.04.2017, with reference to FIR No. 641/16, registered at PS Shalimar , Delhi, in respect of commission of offence of causing simple hurt, by rash and negligent driving, of a motor Tata Temp bearing registration no. HR-55M-5458, on a public road, punishable U/s 279/337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Subsequently, a final report under Section 173 of MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 6 of36 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein afterwards referred as Cr.P.C), was filed against respondent no. 1, namely Vinesh Kumar (hereinafter referred as R1), for the alleged commission of offence under Section 279/337/338 of IPC.
2. As per DAR, the offending vehicle was registered in the name of Bal Govind (hereinafter referred as R2).
3. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR, and documents of the petitioner, are that, on 11.10.2016, when the petitioner along with Mumtaz Alam, and Tanveer Alam, after loading of cement from cement siding side were going to Burari, in Tempo bearing registration No. HR-55M-5458 (herein after referred as offending vehicle) and at about 5:00 a.m. reached Shalimar Bagh Flyover, near Azadpur, Delhi, R1 had hit his tempo against one Canter. It was further averred that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by its driver R1, at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and without caring for traffic rules. It was further averred that as a result of the said impact, the petitioner along with other occupants sustained multiple injuries. It was further averred that the petitioner/injured was taken to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Memorial Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined, vide MLC no. 12456, as per which, the injuries sustained by the petitioner, was stated to be grievous in nature.
MACT No. 404/17Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 7 of36
4. The respondent no.1/driver of the offending vehicle and R2/owner, failed to file written statement on record, their defence was closed vide order dated 08.08.2018 and they were proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 03.02.2020 therefore, they deemed to have admitted the contents of the DAR.
5. National Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle (hereinafter referred as respondent no.3/R3) had filed its written statement, wherein R3 has stated that R3 admitted that offending vehicle was insured with R3 in the name of Bal Govind vide policy No. 360400/31/15/6300005615, which is valid for the period 26.11.2015 to 25.11.2016. It was further averred that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of R1. They have denied all other contents of the claim petition and stated that R3 is not liable to pay anything.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated 08.08.2018:-
1. Whether Gaffar had sustained injuries on 11.10.2016 at about 5:00 am, over the Shalimar Bagh Flyover, near Azadpur, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of tempo bearing registration no. HR55M-5458, Tata 407, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Vinesh ? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 8 of36 what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
7. It is worthwhile to mention here that there are three connected petitions i.e. bearing No 402/17, 403/17 and 404/17, resulting from the same accident. The said petitions are pertaining to injuries, sustained by Tanveer Alam, Mumtaz Alam and Gaffar. Therefore, after framing of issues, when the matter was listed for petitioner's evidence, both the cases were consolidated, for the purpose of evidence and MACT case no. 402/17, was taken as the main case and evidence, with respect to all the claim petitions was recorded in MACT case no. 402/17 and they will be read together.
8. During the pendency of case, petitioner expired and his LRs were impleaded as petitioners vide order dated 23.11.2021.
9. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading evidence in support of the same.
10. In support of his case, the petitioner got himself examined as PW3, by way of his affidavit Ex. PW3/A. MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 9 of36
11. PW1 deposed that on 11.10.2016, when he along with Mumtaz Alam, and Mohd Gaffar after loading of cement from cement siding side were going to Burari, in Tempo bearing registration No. HR-55M-5458 and at about 5:00 a.m. reached Shalimar Bagh Flyover, near Azadpur, Delhi, R1 had hit his tempo against one Canter proceeding ahead of the offending vehicle. PW1 further deposed that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver R1, at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and without caring for traffic rules. PW1 further deposed that accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of R1. PW1 further deposed that after the accident, he was immediately taken to BJRM hospital, Delhi where he was medically examined vide MLC no. 124442. PW1 further deposed that due the accident, he has suffered multiple injuries on his body. PW1 further deposed that he has spent Rs. 25,000/- on his treatment, Rs. 5,000/- on conveyance and special diet. PW1 further deposed that he was working as labourer at cement siding, Shakur Basti, Delhi and earning Rs. 13,000/- per month. PW1 further deposed that he has suffered mental agony, pain and sufferings due to the accident. In his evidence, PW1 has placed reliance upon certified copy of DAR filed by the IO is Ex. PW1/1 (colly.) and photocopy of his election ID as Ex. PW1/2 (OSR).
12. PW1 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3, wherein MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 10 of36 he deposed that he is labour and working with Govind Transport Co. but he has not filed any record regarding his employment and earning. PW1 deposed that on 11.10.2016, after loading the cement bags, he was going from Shakurbasti to Burari. PW1 further deposed that he was sitting in the cabin of truck and other two persons namely Mumtaz and Gaffar were sitting in the backside of the truck i.e. on the cement bags which were loaded on the back of the truck. PW1 deposed that accident took place at Shalimar Bagh flyover at about 4:30 a.m. on 11.10.2016. PW1 deposed that driver of vehicle no. HR55M-5458 was driving the vehicle at a speed of 80-90 KM/hr. The duster/canter overtook the truck, all of a sudden the driver of the canter stopped the vehicle and driver of offending truck hit the canter. PW1 denied the suggestion that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of canter/duster. PW1 deposed that an accident has already occurred on the flyover and PCR vehicle was present at the spot, who immediately rush to them and shifted them to BJRM Hospital. PW1 further deposed that his statement was recorded at the PS by police official. He deposed that no site plan was prepared at his instance. He deposed that driver of canter fled away from the spot. PW1 further deposed that he could not register the FIR against the driver of Canter as he fled away from the spot. He further deposed that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the canter as the accident had taken place due to sole negligence of the MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 11 of36 offending truck. PW1 further deposed that after MLC, doctors discharged him on the same day. PW1 further deposed that he has not placed on record any medical bills and treatment record. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has not incurred Rs. 5000/- towards conveyance and special diet. PW1 further deposed that he has not placed any bill towards diet and conveyance. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on behalf of driver of canter.
13. PW2 Mumtaz Alam @ Mumataj got herself examined as PW2, by way of her affidavit Ex. PW2/A. Her deposition qua the accident in question and injuries sustained by the petitioner, in the case accident, is reiteration of the contents of the DAR. PW2 further deposed that after the accident, she was immediately taken to BJRM hospital, Delhi where she was medically examined vide MLC no. 124055. PW2 further deposed that due the accident, she has suffered multiple injuries on her body. PW2 further deposed that she has spent Rs. 20,000/- on her treatment, Rs. 5,000/- on conveyance and special diet. PW2 further deposed that she was aged about 42 years, working as labourer at cement siding, Shakur Basti, Delhi and earning Rs. 12,500/- per month. PW2 further deposed that he has suffered mental agony, pain and sufferings due to the accident. In his evidence, PW2 has placed reliance upon certified copy of DAR filed by the IO is already Ex. PW1/1 (colly.) and photocopy of his election ID as Ex.
MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 12 of36
PW2/2 (OSR).
14. PW3 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company, wherein he deposed that he is a labourer and working with Govind Transport company but he has not filed any record regarding his employment and earning. PW2 deposed that on 11.10.2016 after loading the cement bags, he was going from Shakurbasti to Burari. PW3 further deposed that he was sitting in the back side of the truck with Gaffar and Tanvir was sitting in the cabin. PW3 further deposed that accident took place at Shalimar Bagh flyover at about 4:30 a.m. on 11.10.2016. PW3 deposed that driver of vehicle no. HR55M-5458 was driving the vehicle at a speed of 80-90 KM/hr and the duster/canter overtook the truck, all of a sudden the driver of the canter stopped the vehicle and driver of offending truck hit the canter. PW3 denied the suggestion that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving canter/duster. PW3 deposed that an accident has already occurred on the flyover and PCR vehicle was present at the spot, who immediately rush to them and shifted them to BJRM Hospital. PW2 further deposed that his statement was recorded at the PS by police official. He deposed that no site plan was prepared at his instance. He deposed that driver of canter fled away from the spot. PW2 further deposed that he could not register the FIR against the driver of Canter as he fled away from the spot. He further deposed that there was no negligence on the part of the MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 13 of36 driver of the canter as the accident had taken place due to sole negligence of the offending truck. PW3 further deposed that after MLC, doctors discharged him on the same day. PW2 further deposed that he has not placed on record any medical bills and treatment record. PW2 denied the suggestion that he has not incurred Rs. 5000/- towards conveyance and special diet. PW3 further deposed that he has not placed any bill towards diet and conveyance. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on behalf of driver of canter.
15. PW4/petitioner Mohd. Gaffar @ Abdul Gaffar got himself examined as PW4, by way of his affidavit Ex. PW4/A. His deposition qua the accident in question and injuries sustained by the petitioner, in the case accident, is reiteration of the contents of the DAR. PW4 further deposed that after the accident, he was immediately taken to BJRM hospital, Delhi where he was medically examined vide MLC no. 124056. PW4 further deposed that later on he was shifted to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, where he remained under treatment as indoor patient from 11.10.2016 to 14.10.2016. PW4 further deposed that due to the accident, he has suffered multiple injuries, including fracture of left hip and left foot. PW4 further deposed that during his hospitalization at Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, a major operation was performed on 12.10.2016 on his left leg for nailing under MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 14 of36 spinal anesthesia and he was discharged on 14.10.2016 with advise to remain on prescribed medicines with strict bed rest and to attend OPD from time to time. PW4 further deposed that he has spent Rs. 2,50,000/- on his treatment. He further deposed that he has attended OPD for more than 25 times and spent Rs. 1,000/- per visit on conveyance. PW4 further deposed he has spent Rs. 2,000/- per month on special diet. PW4 further deposed that he was aged about 44 years, working as labour at cement siding, Shakur Basti, Delhi and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. PW4 further deposed that he has suffered mental agony, pain and sufferings due to the accident. In his evidence, PW4 has placed reliance upon certified copy of DAR filed by the IO is already Ex. PW1/1 (colly.) and original medical bills as Ex. PW1/d (colly.)
16. PW4 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for R3/insurance company wherein he was sitting in the back portion of the tempo/truck bearing registration No. HR55-M-5458 with the sacks of cement. PW4 deposed that other two injured persons namely Mumtaj and Tanvir were also sitting with him in the back portion of the said vehicle with sacks of cement. PW4 admitted that the said vehicle was full with cement sacks and they were sitting on the top of said cement sacks. PW4 denied the suggestion that normally a person cannot travel by sitting at the position where they were sitting. He voluntarily stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver at a very high speed MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 15 of36 and negligently. PW4 deposed that he is not aware if it is prohibited under M.V. Act to travel in the manner they were travelling in the offending vehicle. PW4 admitted that he has not filed on record any proof to the effect that he used to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month or any income proof. He denied the suggestion that neither he was working nor earning anything at the time of accident. PW4 denied the suggestion that he did not incur medical expenses of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. He voluntarily stated that some of his medical bills are already on record. PW4 denied the suggestion that he did not incur any expenditure on special diet, conveyance and attendant. PW4 denied the suggestion that he was not earning anything at the time of accident or that his family members were not dependent upon him. PW4 denied the suggestion that as the cement sacks are made of nylon or that as they are slippery in nature, therefore they slipped and fell down upon application of brakes by R1. He voluntarily stated that R1 was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and negligently due to which the case accident occurred. PW4 deposed that they all requested R1 to drive at a slow speed, however R1 did not pay any heed to their request and hit a vehicle/container going in front of the offending vehicle due to which the case accident occurred and they received injuries. He denied the suggestion that the said container was stopped in a normal way or that the offending vehicle which was being driven by R1 in a normal speed had also to stop due to stopping of the said MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 16 of36 container or that the offending vehicle did not hit the said container. PW4 denied the suggestion that they are solely responsible for the injuries sustained by them in the case accident.
17. In its evidence, R3 has led its evidence and examined Sh.
Raj Kumar, Assistant as R3W1 by way of affidavit Ex. R3W1/A. R3W1 has placed reliance upon notice U/s XII rule 8 CPC as Ex. R3W1/1, original postal receipts as Ex. R3W1/2, original return envelope as Ex R3W1/3 and attested copy of insurance policy of offending vehicle as Ex. R3W1/4. R3W1 deposed that petitioner was an unauthorized passenger and hence not covered under the policy.
18. Final arguments were thereafter addressed by Ld. Counsels for both the parties.
19. Ld. counsel for insurance company/R3 has placed reliance of judgment Civil Miscelleneous Appel no. 3584 of 1996 and First appeal no. 276 of 1989, decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
20. The issue-wise findings of this Tribunal, based on appreciation of the evidence, are reproduced herein below.
ISSUE No. 1Whether Gaffar had sustained injuries on 11.10.2016 at MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 17 of36 about 5:00 am, over the Shalimar Bagh Flyover, near Azadpur, Delhi, due to rash and negligent driving of tempo bearing registration no. HR55M-5458, Tata 407, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Vinesh ? OPP
21. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of probabilities, was upon the petitioner/claimant. To prove the aspect of rashness and negligence of R1, in driving the offending vehicle, the petitioner got himself examined as PW4. As per chargesheet, PW3 was himself the injured/eye witness of the case accident. PW3 has led his evidence, wherein he deposed that on 11.10.2016, when he along with Mumtaz Alam, and Tanveer Alam, after loading of cement from cement siding side were going to Burari, in Tempo bearing registration No. HR-55M-5458 and at about 5:00 a.m. reached Shalimar Bagh Flyover, near Azadpur, Delhi, R1 had hit his tempo against one Canter, which was moving ahead of tempo. PW1 deposed that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by its driver R1, at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and without caring for traffic rules. PW1 further deposed that as a result of the said impact, the he along with other occupants sustained multiple injuries. PW3 further deposed that he was taken to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Memorial Hospital, Delhi, where he was medically examined, vide MLC no. 124056, as per which, the injuries sustained by the him, was stated to be grievous in nature. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, he was taken to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital.
MACT No. 404/17Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 18 of36
22. R1 and R2 failed to contest the present DAR/claim petition, by filing any written statement, in their defence, consequently, they both deemed to have admitted the entire contents of the DAR. Further, they both failed to cross examine PW1, in order to highlight the weaknesses or to bring out any falsity, from the deposition of PW1, so as to negate the factum of accident, due to rashness or negligence, on the part of R1, in driving the offending vehicle.
23. PW3 has been cross-examined by Ld. Counsels for R3/insurance company, but R3 failed to impeach the credibility of PW1 and failed to elicit any admissions, from the testimony of PW1, so as to prove that the alleged accident has not taken place, with the offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by R1.
24. The MLC of the injured, as annexed with the DAR, shows that after the accident, the victim was shifted to BJRM Hospital, on the same day, in emergency and at the relevant time, it was mentioned that the patient was victim of road traffic accident. Further, as per MLC, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, in the case accident.
25. Thus, in view of the above said discussion, it can be safely concluded, that the petitioner has been able to prove, on MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 19 of36 preponderance of probabilities, that the case accident has been caused by R1, who was driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner, at the above said date, time and place, thereby causing simple injuries to him.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
26. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no. 1, regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, in respect of medical expenses incurred by him, as well as pain and suffering endured by him, on account of injuries sustained in the case accident. This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence led by the parties, including the documents of the petitioner, for the purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which the petitioner is entitled.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
27. To prove the amount incurred by the petitioner, on his treatment, the petitioner got himself examined as PW3, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW3/A, wherein he deposed MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 20 of36 that after the accident, he received treatment from BJRM hospital, vide MLC No. 12456, dated 11.10.2016 and thereafter, he was shifted to Maharaja Agarsen hospital where, he remained admitted from 11.10.2016 to 14.10.2016. He further deposed that during the period, he remained in hospital, a major operation was done and he spent Rs. 2,50,000/- on his treatment. PW1 further deposed he attended OPD for more than 25 times. The petitioner has further placed on record his original bills, towards treatment and purchase of medicines. Perusal of the medical bills, as placed on record by the petitioner, reveals that he has incurred aggregate expenditure of Rs. 1,31,407/-, on his medical treatment. Accordingly, in view of the original medical bills, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,31,407/-, towards medical expenses. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award compensation of Rs. 1,31,407/-, to the petitioner, under the head of medical expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
28. To prove the amount incurred by the petitioner, on special diet and conveyance, the petitioner got himself examined as PW3, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW3/A, wherein he deposed that he had visited in OPD 25 times to hospital for treatment and he has spent Rs. 1,000/- as conveyance charges. He further deposed that he has spent Rs. 2,000/- per month on special diet. However, the petitioner has failed to place on record, prescription of any doctor or MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 21 of36 medical practitioner or dietitian, containing details of special diet, such as, nutritional supplements, prescribed to him, for speedy recovery of the injuries, sustained in the case accident. He has also failed to place on record any transport bills, in respect of expenditure incurred by him, on his travel to hospital, from his residence and vice-versa. Further, the petitioner has also not examined any witness, to prove her expenditure on special diet and conveyance. Accordingly, the entitlement of the petitioner, to compensation if any, towards special diet and conveyance charges, has to be determined, in accordance with the nature of injuries, sustained by the petitioner/victim in the case accident.
29. In this context, a perusal of MLC No. 124056, dated 11.10.2016, of the petitioner Mohd. Gaffar, reveals that after examination of the petitioner, the doctor has given the observation, that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, in the case accident. Therefore, keeping in view of the nature of injuries, sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have incurred expenses on special diet, required for his speedy recovery, as well as on travel to clinics/hospitals from her residence and vice versa. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/-, is granted to the petitioner, as compensation under this head, including Rs. 15,000/- each, towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
MACT No. 404/17Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 22 of36 ATTENDANT CHARGES
30. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has incurred expenditure on attendant charges. However, perusal of the record reveals that he has not disclosed the expenditure incurred by him, on availing services of a medical attendant, during his treatment period. Further, perusal of the court record reveals that the petitioner has neither placed on record any bill, raised by any agency, from which, he had hired a medical attendant nor examined the concerned attendant, hired by him or any employee of the agency, through which, he had hired the said attendant. However, as discussed above, regarding the medical condition of the petitioner, as per which, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the case accident therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that due to the injuries sustained by him, in the case accident, he must have availed services of at-least his family member, as an attendant, for his self-care activities. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner, under this head, towards attendant charges.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
31. While deciding the compensation under the head of pain and suffering, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a case titled as "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon & Ors., has disallowed the compensation under the head pain and suffering, being MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 23 of36 personal injuries. Thus, as the petitioner expired, during the pendency of the proceedings, therefore, the LRs of the deceased petitioner are not entitled for any compensation under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
32. In the present matter, as per record, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the case accident. He deposed that at the time of accident, he was 44 years of age, working as a labourer at Cement siding, Shakur Basti, and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month but, he failed to produce any documents on record and also failed to examine any witness to prove that due to the injuries, he was not able to continue his work or has suffered any loss of income or he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month.
33. But, keeping in view the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, and last purchase of medicine i.e. on 27.07.2017, the period of treatment-cum- recuperation, in the case of the petitioner, is ascertained to be about 09 month and his income is determined as minimum wages, payable to an unskilled person. As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner, at the time of accident, he was a resident of TH-58, T-Huts, Cement Siding, Railway Camp, Shakur Basti, North West, Delhi. In the said circumstances and discussion, the monthly income of the petitioner, at the relevant time, as on the date of occurrence of the case accident i.e. on 11.10.2016, is MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 24 of36 accepted as Rs. 9,724/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted compensation of Rs. 87,516/- (9,724/- x09), as compensation, under the head of loss of income.
34. Accordingly, the over all compensation, which is to be awarded to the petitioner, thus comes to Rs. 2,63,923/-, which is tabulated as below:-
Sl. Compensation Award amount
No
1. Pain and suffering Nil
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 30,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs 15,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,31,407/-
6. Loss of income Rs. 87,516/-
Total Rs. 2,63,923/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Three only)
35. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Apex Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. The present DAR had been instituted on 22.04.2017 and the rate of interest on fixed deposits in nationalized banks had fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency of the present matter. Therefore, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha & Ors MAC APP. No. MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 25 of36 36/2023 passed by Hon'ble High Court on 21.04.2023, this court is of the opinion that the claimants/petitioners are entitled to interest at the prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition, that is, with effect from 22.04.2017 till realization of the compensation amount.
36. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be deducted from the above amount, if the same has already been paid to the petitioner.
LIABILITY
37. In the case in hand, National Insurance Company Ltd/R3 has denied its liability, contending that insurance company that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling as a gratuitous passenger and the petitioner was therefore not liable to be compensated by the insurance company and compensation, if any, should be paid by the owner, who had permitted passengers to travel in a goods vehicle.
38. I have considered the above defence of the insurance company in the light of factual matrix of the case as well as the law of the land. In this context, a perusal of the court record reveals that it is the case of the petitioner that the injured/petitioner along with other injured were sitting in the offending vehicle as labourers/loaders. In this respect, a perusal of the insurance policy of the offending MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 26 of36 vehicle also reveals that the said policy is a comprehensive policy in which premium has been paid not only for third party risk but also for own damage as well as risk to owner, driver, paid cleaner and paid driver etc. Moreover, even if the insurance policy in question was not a comprehensive policy and was rather a limited liability or third party policy then also the employees or representative of owner of the goods vehicle were required to be compulsorily covered under the provisions of section 147 (1)(b) (i) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In this context, Section 147(1)(b) of M.V. Act is reproduced herein below:-
147. requirements of policies and limits of liability:-
1. In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-
(a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and
(b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-
(i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily (injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle) or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place;
(ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place:
Provided that a policy shall not be required-
(i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of an in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 27 of36 under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-
(a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or
(b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or
(c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or
(ii) to cover any contractual liability.
39. Thus, in the light of the relevant provisions of Section 147(1)(b) (i) of M.V. Act, the employees of an owner of goods vehicle engaged in loading and unloading of goods in the vehicle are required to be compulsorily covered U/s 147(1)(b)(i) of M.V. Act as representatives of the owner of goods.
40. In this context, it has also been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hanumanagoda Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., that an employee of clerical cader travelling in a goods carriage along with goods was duly covered under the clause of persons employed in connection with operation of loading and unloading of goods. After referring to the relevant clause of the insurance policy, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that the expressions persons employed in connection with the operation of the vehicle was over and above the policy coverage provided to persons employed in connection with loading and unloading of the vehicle in question and would also include an employee of clerical cader MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 28 of36 accompanying the goods. Relevant extracts of observations made in para no. 5 and 6 of the judgment are noteworthy in this context and are reproduced below:-
5. For deciding the above issue, one is simply required to go through the relevant clause IMT 17 of the policy, whose copy has been made available to us. The clause reads thus:
"Add: for LL to persons employed in connection with the operation and/or loading unloading of motor vehicle IMT 17".
6. The High Court has clearly fallen in error in holding that the insurer is not liable in respect of death of Hanumanth. The clause- "persons employed in connection with the operation" is clearly over and above the coverage provided by the policy to " persons employed in connection with loading/unloading of motor vehicle". As Gumasthe, the deceased was accompanying the goods in transit for the purpose of delivery of goods. This has been accepted by the High Court. Obviously, as Gumasthe the deceased would be covered by the expression "persons employed in connection with operation of motor vehicle". The operation of the aforesaid clause has wrongly been restricted and limited only to persons employed in connection with loading/unloading of the motor vehicle.
41. In another similar case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka titled as V. Hanumanthappa Vs. G. Santhamma & Ors. MFA No.20242/2012 decided on 14.01.2020, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had similarly observed that the victims travelling as collies for unloading and loading of the tractor trailer were compulsorily covered under the insurance policy as per the section 147 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Relevant extract of observations MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 29 of36 made by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in paras nos. 12 and 13 numbers of judgment is reproduced below in this context:-
12. Therefore in the case of hand it is proved by leading cogent evidence that the injured was travelling in the offending truck for loading and unloading of cement sacks and as such there is compulsory coverage of the risk of said coolies under insurance policy. It is not disputed that the insurance policy covering the risk of driver and employees. It is also admitted that extra premium is collected in respect of employee and it is not the case of the insurance company that there are more than one claim arising out of the said accident.
13. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the finding recorded by the tribunal that the claimants have not proved that the was travelling as a coolie in the tractor and trailer and therefore the insurer has to be exonerated is erroneous, illegal and is liable to be set aside. The liability to satisfy the award has to be fastened against the insurer as there is no breach of policy conditions by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle. There is no appeal by the claimants. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed.
42. In the light of aforecited opinion expressed by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the decided cases of Hanumanagoda Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and V. Hanumanthappa Vs. G. Santhamma & Ors. (supra) respectively, it can be safely concluded that even under the statutory insurance policy, the employees of the owner of the insured vehicle and representatives of the owner of goods in a goods carriage are compulsorily insured to the extent of liability as stipulated under the Act and terms and conditions of the MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 30 of36 policy. However, in the present case, the policy of insurance is a comprehensive policy in which coverage for own damage, third parties, driver, owner cleaner and paid driver has been obtained by paying specific premium for each category. Besides under the head of limitation as to use of the policy employees of the owner of the insured vehicle other than driver are also covered and in the present case the petitioner along with other victims were travelling in the offending vehicle as employees of the owner-cum-driver of the insured vehicle in their capacity as loaders of goods and are therefore covered under the insurance policy in question. As such, there is no merit in any of the three defence of the insurance company and the said company cannot escape its liability to compensate the victims of the case accident as well as their legal heirs by invoking any of its frivolous defence. Hence, R3 is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner as per law.
43. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated 16.05.2017 of Hon'ble High Court by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors., National Insurance Company Ltd/R3 is directed to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 2,63,923/- within 30 days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition/DAR till notice of deposition of the MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 31 of36 awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocates and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
44. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP was recorded on 30.05.2025, 12.01.2026 regarding their savings bank A/c with endorsement of MACT claims SB Account, no loan, cheque book and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment passed in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
MACT No. 404/17Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 32 of36
45. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small amount be released to the claimants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by the petitioners, it is hereby directed that on realization of the award amount, the compensation to the Petitioners be distributed as follows:-
Sl. Name/No. of Relationshi Share of Release of Amount Period of No. petitioner p with amount of award of kept in FDR deceased award amount. FDR 1 Jarina Khatun/ wife Rs. Rs. 1,03,923/- Nil Nil petitioner no. 1 1,03,923/-
2 Sarwar Alam, Son Rs, 40,000/- Rs, 40,000/- Nil Nil petitioner no. 2
3. Mohd. Gurfan Son Rs, 40,000/- Amount withheld
4. Mohd. Asif Son Rs, 40,000/-
Alam
5. Saba Parvin daughter Rs, 40,000/- Rs, 40,000/- Nil Nil
46. The award amount alongwith up to date interest, be credited in the saving bank accounts of petitioners i.e. Petitioner- (1) Petitioner- Jarina Khatun bank account No. 32938099961 with SBI, Jamalpur Gogri Branch, IFSC No. is SBIN0003790, Petitioner- Sarwar Alam-44648067202, Petitioner Saba Parvin-44390454166 with SBI, District Court Rohini, Near Antriksh Apartment, Delhi, IFSC No. of the both the accounts is SBIN0010323.
RELIEF
47. As discussed above, National Insurance Company Ltd/R3 is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs. 2,63,923/-
MACT No. 404/17Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 33 of36 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR, that is, 22.04.2017, till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
48. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the claimant and complete details in respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
49. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the granted time.
50. In terms of directions contained in the order dated 07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian Bank's Association as circulated to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated 22.02.2019 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606) MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 34 of36 {other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email ([email protected]) through the computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
In view of the directions contained in order dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no. 842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the statement of petitioners were also recorded on 30.05.2025 & 12.01.2026.
51. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per rules.
Digitally signed by DEEPIKA DEEPIKA SINGH Announced in open court SINGH Date: 2026.03.27 15:30:15 +0530 On 24th March, 2026 (DEEPIKA SINGH) PO MACT/NORTH WEST ROHINI, DELHI. MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 35 of36 FORM - IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 11.10.2016
2. Name of injured: Mohd. Gaffar
3. Age of the injured: About 42 years at the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: N/A
5. Income of the injured: 9,724/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: As per record.
8. Period of hospitalization: As per record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Not proved
10. Computation of Compensation S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss (I) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 1,31,407
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.15,000/-
(v) Loss of Income Rs. 87,516/- (vi) Any other loss which may require any N/A
special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and physical N/A shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Nil MACT No. 404/17 Gaffar vs. Vinesh & Ors. . Page 36 of36
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil.
(iv) Disfiguration N/A (v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A (vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and Nil.
nature of disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation N/A of life span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil.
relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income - (Income Nil
X%Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 2,63,923/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
16. Interest amount up to the date of award Rs. 1,76,608.47
17. Total amount including interest Rs. 4,40,531.47 (rounded off
to Rs. 4,40,532/-
18. Award amount released Rs. 4,40,532/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs N/A
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the award. 23.04.2026 (Clause 31) DEEPIKA Digitally signed by DEEPIKA SINGH SINGH Date: 2026.03.27 15:30:08 +0530 (DEEPIKA SINGH) PO MACT/NORTH WEST ROHINI, DELHI.
MACT No. 404/17