Delhi District Court
Joginder Kumar Yadav vs Om Parkash on 15 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH: DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.202/2023
CNR No.-DLWT010022982023
Joginder Kumar Yadav
S/o Sh. Guran Yadav
R/o H. No. 25, Khasra No. 110/25,
Gali No.1, Mandir Baba Haridas
Geetanjali Enclave, Jharoda Kalan,
South West Delhi-110072
.............petitioner
Versus
1. Om Parkash (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal
R/o 162, Karan Vihar, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, New Delhi
2. Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Shiv Ganga Automobiles, Paschim Vihar, Delhi
........ Respondent(s)
Date of Institution of case : 16.03.2023
Date of final arguments : 15.04.2025
Date of pronouncement of order/judgment : 15.04.2025
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 06.10.2022
2. Date of filing of Form-I – 16.03.2023
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to 16.03.2023
the victim(s)
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.1 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:15 +0530
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 16.03.2023
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 16.03.2023
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 16.03.2023
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 16.03.2023
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 16.03.2023
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Incident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 06.10.2022 and DAR was
the Investigating Officer? If filed on 16.03.2023
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Yes
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed by
claimant(s) to the offer of the insurance company
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 15.04.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.2 of 26
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:17 +0530
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 16.03.2023
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) Yet to be filed
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential H. No. 25, Khasra No.
Address of the claimant(s). 110/25, Gali No.1, Mandir
Baba Haridas Geetanjali
Enclave, Jharoda Kalan,
South West Delhi-110072
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yet to be filed
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) No
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
DAR filed for compensation on account of the injuries sustained
by injured Joginder Kumar Yadav in a road vehicular accident
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.3 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:20 +0530
which took place on 06.10.2022 at about 22:00 hours at Rohtak
Road, Near Metro Pillar No. 262, New Delhi.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER SIDE
2. Succinctly, the case put forth by DAR is that on
06.10.2022, injured was returning home from Karol Bagh on his
TSR bearing registration no. DL1RW9357. At about 10:00 pm,
when he reached at Near Metro Pillar No. 262, Paschim Vihar, in
the meantime, one bike bearing registration no. DL4SDL4416
came from back side in high speed, in rash manner and negligent
manner. It hit the TSR of the injured from its right side. Due to
same, TSR of injured turned turtle and injured received grievous
injuries in this matter. After the incident, injured was shifted to
Sanjay Gandhi Hosptial, Mangolpuri, New Delhi by family of the
injured where he was examined vide MLC no. 25732/2022. The
incident happened solely due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.01 who was driving the vehicle in rash and
negligent manner. FIR No. 823/2022 under Section 279/337/338
IPC was registered against respondent no.1. The respondent
no.01 being driver-cum-owner and respondent no.02 being the
insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner(s).
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/petition/DAR was issued
to the respondents on which they appeared and filed their
WS(s)/reply(ies) to the present petition/application.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.01
4. In gist, the response of the respondents no.01 as
discernible from his reply/written statement is that respondent
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.4 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:23 +0530
no.1 was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
Injured sustained injuries due to his sole negligence. Injured fell
on the road after being hit by another vehicle which was not
detained by the police. Vehicle in question was duly insurance
with respondent no.2 at the time of incident. The respondent no.1
denied all other averments of the petition and prayed for
dismissal of the same.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.02
5. In gist, the response of the respondent no.02 as
discernible from its reply/written statement is that vehicle in
question was duly insured with it vide policy no. V-9810777 for
period 23.02.2022 to 22.02.2027 covering the date of incident.
Respondent no.1 was holding a learner’s license and he was
driving the vehicle in question alone. Respondent no.1 was under
the influence of alcohol at the time of incident. It denied all other
averments of petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
ISSUES
6.1 After completion of pleadings, on 18.09.2023 this
tribunal framed following issues:-
1. Whether the injured Joginder Kumar
Yadav suffered injuries in the accident that
took place on 06.10.2022 at about 10:00 pm,
at in front of Metro Pillar No. 262, Rohtak
Road, towards Peera Garhi Flyover, Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle bearing registration
number DL4SDL4416 by respondent no.1,
being owned by respondent no.1 and insured
with respondent no.2? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)
is/are entitled to compensation, if yes, of
what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.5 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:25 +0530
6.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of
petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE
7. Petitioner examined himself as PW1 to establish his
claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A
reiterating and supporting the contents of his
application/petition/DAR. He relied upon copy of his Aadhar
card Ex.PW1/1, copy of his driving license Ex.PW1/2, copy of
RC & permit of vehicle bearing No. DL1RW9357 Ex.PW1/3,
copy of treatment records Mark A, copy of information report of
loss of documents Ex.PW1/5 and DAR Ex.PW1/6 in his
evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
8. Respondent no.2/Insurance Company has examined
its Executive (Legal) Ms. Aparna Malik as R2W1 who tendered
her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A. She relied upon
copy of her authority letter Ex.R2W1/1 & copy of insurance
policy Ex.R2W1/2 in her evidence. She in gist has deposed that
as per information derived from the DAR and final report of the
Investigating Agency, driver Om Prakash had only learning
license and was not accompanied by any person holding valid
driving license to drive the vehicle in question which is violation
of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. She was not
cross-examined by respondent no.1 and petitioner side and was
discharged.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS
9.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.6 of 26 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.17 15:43:27 +0530
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.01. The injured is a TSR driver and used to earn Rs.1000/-
per day at the time of incident. Award may be passed by this
Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicants/claimants/LRs.
9.2 No argument has been addressed by respondent no.1
despite grant of number of opportunities.
9.3 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.02 are
that the petitioner(s)/claimant(s) has/have failed to prove that
incident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. Petitioner side has also failed to prove his
income and loss of income due to incident. Respondent no.1 had
only learner’s license at the time of incident. He was not
accompanied by any person having valid license to drive at the
time of incident. Respondent no.2 be exonerated, if this court
comes to conclusion that incident happened due to negligence of
respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 is fastened with liability.
With these contentions, respondent no.02 has prayed for
dismissal of the present claim petition.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
10.1 Issue No.(1) -Whether the injured Joginder Kumar Yadav
suffered injuries in the accident that took place on 06.10.2022 at
about 10:00 pm, at in front of Metro Pillar No. 262, Rohtak
Road, towards Peera Garhi Flyover, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration
number DL4SDL4416 by respondent no.1, being owned by
respondent no.1 and insured with respondent no.2? OPP.
10.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil court. In
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.7 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:30 +0530
civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy as
it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under the M. V. Act,
this burden is even lesser than a civil case. Reference in this
regard can be made to the prepositions of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of “Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors. “
reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the
subsequent judgments in the case of “Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
10.3 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for the parties.
10.4 The petitioner / applicant / claimant has deposed in
his examination-in-chief that on 06.10.2022, he was returning to
home on his TSR bearing registration no. DL1RW9357. At about
10:00 pm, when he reached at Near Metro Pillar No. 262,
Paschim Vihar, in the meantime, one bike bearing registration no.
DL4SDL4416 came from back side in high speed, in rash manner
and negligent manner. It hit his TSR from its right side. Due to
same, TSR turned turtle and he received grievous injuries in the
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.8 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:32 +0530
incident. The deposition of petitioner/injured as to manner of
incident, the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner by the respondent no.01 remained unshaken
during cross-examination of said witness and in fact was
strengthened during same.
10.5 The respondent no.01/driver was the best witness
who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of
driving of the offending vehicle put forth by petitioner/claimant
side. But respondent no.01/driver has chosen not to come in
witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner side on said
aspect. In the given circumstances, adverse inference also needs
to be drawn against respondents. Reliance can be placed upon the
decision “Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh” 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 upon said
issue/aspect.
10.6 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record
such facts which establishes at the scales required that the
incident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL4SDL4416
by its driver/respondent no.01 on the date and time of the
incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour of the
petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against the respondents.
Issue No. (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation,
if yes, of what amount and from whom? OPP.
11.1 The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation
in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to
decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.9 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:36 +0530
law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding
lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road
vehicular injury cases.
11.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its division
bench decision in matter of “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.”
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has held : –
“General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the
claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far
as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court
or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with
reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A
person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. ( See C. K.
Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs.
Willoughby – 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.10
Digitally of 26 by
signed
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:39 +0530
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of
injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence
of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads
(ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of
pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much
difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical
expenses – item (iii) — depends upon specific medical evidence regarding
need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary
damages – items (iv), (v) and (vi) — involves determination of lump sum
amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof
on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts
contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary.
What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability – item (ii)(a). We are concerned
with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of earnings due
to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to
perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some
part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and
recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery
which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary
disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or
total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform all
the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in
some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s
inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a
result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor
accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to the
physical disabilities which are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
(`Disabilities Act’ for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in
section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of
claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with
reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the
injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.11 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:41 +0530
lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to
the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body)
expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole
body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of
permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80%
plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages
of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent
disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
8. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a
result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of
future earnings, would depend upon the effect and impact of such
permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not
mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage
of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the
percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity,
arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of
permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a
particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a
corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence
produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent
(percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of
permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a
compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the
income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss
of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine
loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that
percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent disability,
is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in
which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for
determination of compensation (see for example, the decisions of this court
in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd . – 2010(10)
SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010
(8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability.
This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to
the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if
the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is
expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the
permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that
there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.12 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:45 +0530
further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to
ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of
permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to
determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his
earning capacity.
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 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. In fact, there may not be
any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future
earnings’, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may
be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be
continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties
attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his
disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser
post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award
under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced
earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by
treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more
than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of
loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result,
only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of
loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a
duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.”
11.3 In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page
Digitally no.13 of 26
signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:48 +0530
be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning
during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and
trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the
claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads
of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The
assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon
specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs
thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and
suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would
depend upon the age of victim, nature of
injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect
thereof on life of claimant. The process would involve
determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those
heads. In case of assessment of loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, the Tribunal needs to first
ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical
board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is
permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent
disablement or partial permanent disablement. If the disablement
has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to
any specific limb then the effect of such disablement of the limb
on the function of entire body. Once, the permanent disability is
ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such
permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning
capacity of the claimant. To ascertain same, the Tribunal needs
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.14 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:51 +0530
to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the
claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to
ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what
he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs
to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning
any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities
and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the
claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn
his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After
ascertaining the functional disability vide above process, then
Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month.
The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning
capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be
ascertained as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in matter of “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC” 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning
capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate
multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning
capacity. This is a case where no permanent disability is
assessed. The temporary disability assessment cannot be basis of
grant of future loss of income. Hence, this Tribunal now proceeds
further step by step to decide the compensation/award under
different heads applicable to the present matter in light of above
preposition.
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.15 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:53 +0530
DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF
TREATMENT
11.4 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of
treatment as they needs to be kept in mind while ascertaining the
compensation under different heads applicable. The petitioner
has filed on record his medical treatment records Mark A to
prove his nature of injuries. As per MLC of injured issued by
Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, the
injured has suffered grievous injuries in the incident.
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CLAIMANT/INJURED
11.5 The age of the claimant/injured would also be an
essential consideration for grant of just compensation under
different heads applicable in the present matter, so claimant’s age
also needs to be ascertained first. As per copy of Aadhar Card of
injured available on record as Ex.PW1/1, the date of birth of
injured is 17.01.1974. Incident took place on 06.10.2022. So,
the injured was aged about 48 years of age on the date of
incident. So, the injured/petitioner is taken as 48 years of age at
the time of incident/accident.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES
11.6 No medical bills/invoices have been furnished by
the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled for the same.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT
11.7 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for
future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any
document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner
requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.16 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:56 +0530
any amount under this head.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
11.8 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner
has received number of serious injuries, therefore, petitioner
must have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said
injuries. Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the
treatment of the petitioner in the hospital and the temporary
disability(ies) suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in
the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
11.9(i) The injured/petitioner/claimant has claimed that he
is TSR driver and used to earn Rs.1000/- per day at the time of
incident. No documentary proof has been filed by the petitioner
side to show income of the injured. Hence, the petitioner side has
miserably failed to prove the earnings of the injured. Injured has
also not filed any educational qualification documents. Hence,
the income of injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of
chart available in Minimum Wages Act of a Semi-skilled person
of State of Government of NCT of Delhi (driving license of
injured is on record). The minimum wages for an Semi-skilled
person of State of Government of NCT of Delhi on the date of
accident i.e. 06.10.2022 were Rs.18,499/-.
11.9(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured
needs to be considered as Rs.18,499/- per month on the date of
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.17 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:43:58 +0530
accident.
11.9(iii) Considering the nature of injuries and duration of
the treatment of the injured/petitioner, this tribunal is of the
opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work
for about 04 months. Accordingly, this tribunal hereby grant
compensation of sum of Rs.73,996/- (Rs.18,499/- x 04) towards
loss of income during treatment period.
AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET
11.10 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and
duration of his treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this
head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of
Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES
11.11 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record for
the money spent by the petitioner upon attendant, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the duration
of the treatment of the petitioner in the hospital, this tribunal is of
the opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under
this head also. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.
AWARD TOWARDS CONVEYANCE CHARGES
11.12 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured/petitioner must have
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.18 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:44:02 +0530
been spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal
hereby grant compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses
incurred on conveyance.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL
AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN
BELOW : –
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1.
Reimbursement of medical NIL
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIl
future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering 1,00,000/-
4. Conveyance 10,000/-
5. Special diet 10,000/-
6. Attendant charges 10,000/-
7. Loss of Income during 73,996/-
treatment period
Total Rs.2,03,996/-
RELIEF:-
12. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of Rs.2,03,996/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety
Six Only) as compensation with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum including interim award, if any from the date of filing the
DAR/claim petition i.e. 16.03.2023 till the date of the payment of
the award amount, in favour of petitioner/claimant and against
the respondents on account of their liability being joint and
several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
13.1 It is contended by the respondent no.2 Insurance
Company that driver/respondent no.1 was holding only learner
license at the time of incident. He was not accompanied by any
person holding a valid driving license at the time of incident.
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.19 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:44:06 +0530
Respondent Insurance Company has examined its Executive
(Legal) Ms. Aparna Malik as R2W1 to prove the said fact. Her
deposition to that effect was not challanged by respondent no.1.
Perusal of DAR reveals that IO has also mentioned respondent
no.1 to be holding only learner’s license for Motor Cycle with
Gear (Non-Transport) at the time of incident. As per records of
DAR, no person having valid driving license to drive the vehicle
in question was accompanying the respondent no.1 at the time of
incident. Same is violation of the Rule 3 of The Central Motor
Vehicles Rules 1989 and violation of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy as provided under the head of limitations as
to use. Vide notification No. 161 dated 25.02.2022 of amendment
of MV Act, the concept of pay & recover has been done away
with vide effect from 01.04.2022, therefore, respondent
no.2/Insurance Company needs to be exonerated in this matter.
Hence, respondent No.2/Insurance stands exonerated.
13.2 Respondent no.1 being the driver-cum-owner of the
offending vehicle is liable to pay the awarded amount of
compensation to the petitioner. Respondent no.1 is hereby
directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the
petitioner(s) with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in
MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account
No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code –
SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period of 45
days from the date of passing of this award together with the
interest as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal
and under intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s).
In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.20 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:44:09 +0530
9% per annum for the period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP)
14.1 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as “Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. ” has
formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made
effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari,
Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi is directed to disburse the
amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
14.2 Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.01/driver-cum-
owner is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.2,03,996/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety
Six Only) as stated herein above with State Bank of India, Tis
Hazari, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi in the MACT Account
of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202 CIF
No.90891362578, IFSC Code – SBIN0000726 in favour the
petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/ claimant(s) as stated herein above.
14.3 Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is directed to release
Rs.2,03,996/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred
and Ninety Six Only) along with interest in the MACT account
of petitioner to be disclosed by the petitioner vide separate
application within 15 days from today as mentioned/directed
hereinafter in tabulated form.
15. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.21 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:44:11 +0530
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
“Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.” , Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In
case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal
Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail
to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the
directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders
dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the
disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the
receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
16. The respondent no.01/driver-cum-owner shall
deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal
within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS
on 31.05.2025.
17. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.
18. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)].
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.22 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:44:15 +0530
19. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall
also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due
Digitally signed
compliance. by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
Announced in the open TribunalSINGH Date: 2025.04.17
on 15th of April, 2025 15:44:18 +0530
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/15.04.2025
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.23 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:44:21 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 06.10.2022
2. Name of the injured : Joginder Kumar Yadav
3. Age of the injured : 17.01.1974
4. Occupation of the injured: Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.18499/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 06.10.2022 to 03.02.2023
8. Period of Hospitalization : 01 day
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? : NIl
If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Nil
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.10,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.10,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.10,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity NIl
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.73,996/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Nil
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr.
MACT No.202/2023 Page no.24 of 26
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.04.17
15:44:23 +0530
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NIL
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability NIL assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary (ii) Loss of amenities or NIL loss of expectation of life span on account of disability (iii) Percentage of loss of NIL earning capacity in relation to disability (iv) Loss of future income - NIL (Income x% Earning Capacity x Multiplier) 14. TOTAL Rs.2,03,996/- COMPENSATION 15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum 16. Interest amount up to Rs.29,709/- the date of award (w.e.f. 16.03.2023 to 15.04.2025 i.e. 2 years and 29 days) 17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.2,33,705/- INCLUDING (Rs.2,03,996/- + INTEREST Rs.29,709/-) 18. Award amount released Entire award amount + accrued interest 19. Award amount kept in Nil FDRs 20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr. MACT No.202/2023 Page no.25 of 26 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.17 15:44:25 +0530 of the award amount to the claimant (s). 21. Next date for 31.05.2025 compliance of the award. (HARVINDER SINGH) District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01, West/THC/Delhi/15.04.2025 Joginder vs. Om Parkash & Anr. MACT No.202/2023 Page no.26 of 26 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.04.17 15:44:30 +0530
