Delhi District Court
Rajender vs Sonu Sharma on 20 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 170/2024
CNR No.DLWT010023822024
Sh. Rajender Prasad @ Rajender Kumar Sutar
S/o Sh. Ram Chander @ Ram Chander Sutar
R/o RZ-54, 2nd Floor, Gali no.1,
Madhya Marg, Tughalakabad Extension,
Kalkaji PO Kalkaji District South Delhi, Delhi-110019
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Sonu Sharma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Munna Sharma
R/o A-48, New Sainik Vihar, Gali No.5, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi-110059.
2. M/s Road Trans (Owner)
R/o F/F. H. No. 425, Pocket-6, Phase-1, CAT-A,
DDA Flat Nasirpur, Dwarka, south Delhi, South,
Delhi-110045
3. ICICI Lombard General (Insurer)
Insurance Company Limited
New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 16.03.2024
Date of reserving order/judgment : 16.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 20.02.2026
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.1 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:18:56 +0530
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 26.09.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 16.03.2024
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 16.03.2024
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 16.03.2024
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 16.03.2024
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 16.03.2024
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 16.03.2024
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 16.03.2024
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 16.09.2023 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 16.03.2024
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the --
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.2 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:18:59 +0530
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the the present matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 20.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 16.06.2024
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) 16.02.2026
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 RZ-54, 2nd Floor, Gali no.1,
Address of the claimant(s). Madhya Marg,
Tughalakabad Extension,
Kalkaji PO Kalkaji District
South Delhi, Delhi-110019
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.3 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:02 +0530
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
1.1 The present DAR was filed on 16.03.2024 by the
Investigating Officer (IO).
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated
26.09.2023 which occurred at about 11:45 AM Near NCC
Building, Old Kirti Nagar Police Station Bus Stop within the
jurisdiction of PS Kirti Nagar in which Sh. Rajender Prasad @
Rajender Kumar Sutar S/o Sh. Ram Chander @ Ram Chander
Sutar (hereinafter referred as "petitioner") sustained simple
injuries. FIR No.439/2023 under Section 279/337/338 IPC &
3/181 MV Act was registered at PS Kirti Nagar.
1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the
petitioner has suffered injuries in the road accident due to rash
and negligent driving of TATA Ace bearing registration no.
DL1LAF7536 (hereinafter referred as "offending vehicle"), by
respondent no.1. As per the documents annexed, on 26.09.2023,
the petitioner took a sharing E-richshaw from Mayapuri Chowk
to Kirti Nagar to reach his office Nilesh Creations. Thereafter, a
woman along with her son also sat in the e-rickshaw. At about
11:30 AM, when they reached in front of NCC Camp, Old Police
Station Kirti Nagar, Bus Stop, he deboarded from e-rickshaw and
while he was paying his fare, the offending vehicle came from
backside at a very high speed, in rash and negligent manner and
hit the e-rickshaw and the said e-rickshaw overturned upon him.
Consequently, the petitioner sustained injuries. The other
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.4 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:04
+0530
passengers also sustained injuries. The respondent no. 1 took the
injured persons to Acharyashree Bhikshu Govt. Hospital, Moti
Nagar, Delhi-110015 where concerned doctor prepared MLC
No.2926 dated 26.09.2023. In the final report annexed with the
DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s
279/337/338 of IPC and 3/181 MV Act.
1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver, the
respondent no.02 as owner and respondent no.03 as the insurer of
offending vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS
2.1 Respondent no.01 filed his WS inter alia stating that
the petitioner has not come before this Tribunal with clean hands
and claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. It is averred that
respondent no.1 was not driving the vehicle negligently and was
also not present at the spot when the accident happened and he
reached there after sometime of the occurrence of the accident. It
is averred that the petitioner has suffered injuries due to his own
negligence and fault as he was standing on the road without
following traffic rules. It is stated that the DAR is false and
frivolous. With these averments, the respondent no.1 has prayed
for dismissal of the DAR.
2.2 Respondent no.02 filed his WS inter alia stating that
the petitioner has not come before this Tribunal with clean hands
and has suppressed the material facts from this Tribunal. The
present petition is not maintainable as no accident has taken
place with the vehicle of respondent no.2 and the same has been
falsely implicated by the petitioner in connivance with the police
official. The vehicle bearing No. DL1LAF7536 (TATA Ace) was
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.5 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:07 +0530
insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company vide
policy No. 3003/264719711/00/000 for the period from
27.10.2022 to 26.10.2023. The driver of respondent no.1 was
having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question. It
is averred that the site plan has been falsely prepared by the IO to
help the victim and his family. It is further averred that false
mechanical reports of the alleged offending vehicle were
prepared on the instructions of the IO to help the victim and his
family members. With these averments, respondent no.2 has
prayed for dismissal of the DAR.
2.3 Respondent no.03 filed the reply inter alia stating
that the driver of the offending vehicle does not hold any driving
license and he has also been charge sheeted under Section 3/181
MV Act. It admitted that the vehicle bearing No. DL1LAF7536
was insured with it vide policy no. 3003/264719711/00/000 for
the period from 27.10.2022 to 26.10.2023 in the name of M/s
Road Trans.
ISSUES
3. After completion of pleadings, on 23.07.2024, the
Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: –
1. Whether the injured Rajender Kumar
Sutar sustained injuries in the accident that
took place on 26.09.2023 at about 11:45 am
at Near NCC Building, Old Kirti Nagar
Police Station Bus Stop, New Delhi due to
rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle(ACE) bearing registration number
DL1LAF7536 being driven by respondent
no.01, being owned by the respondent no.2
and insured with the respondent no.3?
OPP.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.6 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:09 +0530
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and
from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
4.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 to
establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon photocopies of his medical
treatment records as Ex.PW1/1(colly), photocopies of his
medical bills as Ex.PW1/2(colly), photocopies of his salary slips
and attendance sheet as Ex.PW1/3(colly), photocopies of his
educational certificates as Ex.PW1/4(colly)(OSR), photocopy of
his medical leave certificate as Ex.PW1/5, photocopy of his PAN
card as Ex.PW1/6(OSR) photocopy of his Aadhar Card as
Ex.PW1/7(OSR) and attested copy of complete set of
DAR/criminal documents as Ex.PW1/8(colly) in his evidence.
He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
4.2 No other witnesses were examined by petitioner.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
5.1 No evidence was led by respondent no.1 & 2. Vide
order dt. 17.11.2025, the right of respondent no. 1 & 2 to lead
evidence was closed on account of their non-appearance.
5.2 Respondent no.3 examined R3W1 Sh. Suryansh
Dixit, Legal Manager as R3W1. He tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. He relied upon copy of insurance
policy as Ex. R3W1/1(colly), legal notice under Order 12 Rule 8
CPC as Ex.R3W1/2 and postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/3 &
Ex.R3W1/4 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.7 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:11 +0530
and discharged.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
6.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the
petitioner has proved that the incident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the expenses of the
medical treatment of the injured and also the proof of income of
the injured. It was argued that the employment certificate of the
petitioner has been filed alongwith the DAR and, therefore, the
same stands verified by the IO. It is submitted that keeping in
view the above, the award may be passed by this Tribunal as per
entitlement/claim of petitioner.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO. 1
6.2 It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.
1 that no accident has taken place due to negligence of
respondent no. 1 with the e-rickshaw as alleged.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO. 2
6.3 No arguments were addressed on behalf of
respondent no. 2.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3
6.4 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.03
that the petitioner has not filed on record any medical document
showing that he was advised a bed rest for one month and,
therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to loss of income for one
month for his absence from work as the petitioner had only
suffered a simple injury. It was argued that the petitioner has also
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.8 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:13 +0530
not filed on record any medical prescription in support of the
treatment bills filed by him. It was argued that in the absence of
any prescriptions, it cannot be ascertained whether medical bills
pertain to treatment taken for injuries related to the accident or
not. It is further argued that as per the DAR, the respondent no.1
did not have a valid and effective driving license to drive the
offending vehicle at time of accident and therefore, Section 3/181
M.V. Act was invoked against the respondent no.1 in the final
report filed by the IO and, therefore, the same is a violation of
insurance policy. It is submitted that kalandra u/s 5/180 of MV
Act was also prepared against respondent no.2. It was further
argued that the date of occurrence of the accident is after
01.04.2022 and, therefore, the respondent no. 3 cannot be made
liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner as after
amendment of the Motor Vehicular Act, 1988 the right of the
insurance company to pay and recover has been done away with.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
ISSUE NO.(1)
Whether the injured Rajender Kumar Sutar
sustained injuries in the accident that took
place on 26.09.2023 at about 11:45 am at
Near NCC Building, Old Kirti Nagar Police
Station Bus Stop, New Delhi due to rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle(ACE)
bearing registration number DL1LAF7536
being driven by respondent no.01, being
owned by the respondent no.2 and insured
with the respondent no.3? OPP.
7.1 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 strict rules of evidence are not
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.9 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:16 +0530
applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal
cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof
in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil
case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition 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.” (2009) 13 SC 530, “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.
7.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld.
Counsels for the parties.
7.3 The petitioner has categorically deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Ace bearing
registration No. DL-1LAF-7536 by respondent no.1. He deposed
that the accident happened on 26.09.2023 at about 11:30 AM in
front of NCC Camp, Old Police Station Kirti Nagar, Bus Stop,
Kirti Nagar. He further deposed that he was travelling in an e-
rickshaw with two other passengers i.e. a woman and her son and
when he was deboarding the e-rickshaw and was paying the fare,
the offending vehicle came from backside at very high speed, in
rash and negligent manner and hit the e-rickshaw and
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.10 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:18 +0530
consequently the said e-rickshaw overturned upon him. He
further deposed that he fell down on road and sustained injuries
and was taken to Acharyashree Bhikshu Govt. Hospital, Moti
Nagar, Delhi-110015 where his MLC was prepared and
thereafter, he was treated at Higher Center at Holy Family
Hospital Okhla Road, New Delhi. The petitioner in his evidence
has relied upon his medical treatment records as Ex.PW1/1(colly)
and attested copy of complete set of DAR/criminal documents as
Ex.PW1/8(colly) amongst other documents.
7.4 Nothing favourable to the respondents came on
record during the cross-examination of the petitioner and
documents relied upon by him remained unrebutted. No cross-
examination whatsoever was done on the aspect of involvement
of the offending vehicle in the accident and the rashness and
negligence of respondent no.1 in driving the offending vehicle.
Merely some suggestions were given in this regard.
7.5 Further, the very fact that respondent no.1 was
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section
279/337/338 IPC with respect to the accident in question/FIR
No.439/2023 is in itself a strong circumstance to support the
testimony of PW-1 and sufficiently proves the complicity of the
respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Also the respondent no. 1 did not have a valid driving license to
drive the offending vehicle and was also charged with the offence
U/s 3/181 of M.V. Act. The copies of the FIR, charge-sheet,
MLC, site plan, seizure memos of the vehicles, mechanical
inspection reports of the offending vehicles involved in the
accident and statements recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC also corroborate
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.11 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:20 +0530
the testimony of PW-1.
7.6 It is not disputed that there were three passengers
including a woman and her son in the e-rickshaw in which the
petitioner was travelling. The statement of the said other
passenger Reema and the driver of the e-rickshaw Ajay has also
been recorded U/s 161 CrPC. In their respective statements, both
Reema and Ajay have also narrated the same facts of the incident
as stated by the petitioner and have clearly stated that the
offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash
and negligent manner and had hit the e-rickshaw from behind
due to which the same overturned on its passengers.
7.7 It has been averred that offending vehicle was not
involved in the accident, however, as per the seizure memo of the
offending vehicle, the same was seized on the same day from the
spot of accident and as per mechanical inspection report, it has
fresh damages on the front portion. Thus, clearly, the accident
has been caused by the offending vehicle by hitting the e-
rickshaw from back side.
7.8 Further, it has come in the cross-examination of
PW-1 (on the question put by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3
and adopted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2) that the place of
accident was a crowded place. Also it is not disputed that the e-
rickshaw in which petitioner was traveling was stationary at the
time of accident and in front of the Bus Stop. As per mechanical
inspection report on record, the offending vehicle has fresh
damages on front side and the e-rickshaw has fresh damages on
back side and other parts. Thus, the manner of accident in the
circumstances discussed above clearly show that the accident
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.12 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:22
+0530
happened due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1
(Res Ipsa Loquitur). The nature of impact on the offending
vehicle and as revealed in the mechanical inspection report itself
shows that the offending vehicle was driven at a high speed.
Since, it was a crowded place, the offending vehicle should have
been driven at a slow speed and cautiously.
7.9 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the
best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle and could have thrown
some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident
in question took place. However, respondent no.01/driver has
chosen not to step into the witness box during the course of
inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to
be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred due
to his rash and negligent driving.
7.10 In view of the above discussion and considering the
evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities
proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on
26.09.2023 which occurred at about 11:45 AM Near NCC
Building, Old Kirti Nagar Police Station Bus Stop within the
jurisdiction of PS Kirti Nagar due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle bearing registration number DL1LAF7536
being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is
decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. (II)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and
from whom? OPP.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.13 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:25 +0530
8.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner
is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him
and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road
accident. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it
would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in “Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar & Ors.” (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was 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
(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
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.14 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:27 +0530
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.
8.2 In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to
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. In
light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to
which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:
MEDICAL EXPENSES
8.3(i) The petitioner has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that he has taken treatment as an outdoor patient at Holy
Family Hospital, Okhla Road, New Delhi, for a period of one
month and has incurred an expense of Rs. 50,000/- on his
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.15 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:29 +0530
medical treatment. The petitioner has relied upon his medical
treatment records as Ex.PW1/1(colly) and medical bills as
Ex.PW1/2(colly) and medical leave certificate as Ex.PW1/5 on
record. The original medical treatment record of the petitioner
has also been filed on record. The medical documents relied upon
by the petitioner has been verified by the IO and have been filed
with the DAR. Further, as per the MLC of the petitioner, the
petitioner had suffered some laceration and wounds and also
received sutures. The medical treatment record of Holy Family
Hospital mentions the history of RTA on 26.09.2023 and pertains
to medications and dressing. Thus, the connection of the
treatment taken by the petitioner with the injuries sustained in the
accident is established. No evidence has been led by respondents
to disprove the claim of petitioner. There is no reason to
disbelieve the above documents. The total of the medical
bills/medicine bills filed by the petitioner comes to
Rs.11,238.56/-.
8.3(ii) Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.11,239/ (after rounding off Rs.11,238.56/-) on account of
medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is awarded
Rs.11,239/- on account of medical expenses.
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE
TREATMENT
8.4 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
any amount under this head.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.16 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:32 +0530
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
8.5(i) It has been stated by the petitioner in his
examination-in-chief that he was working as a Sample Master at
Nilesh Creations, Kirti Nagar and was earning Rs. 75,000/- per
month. He has deposed that he could not attend his duty from
26.09.2023 to 26.10.2023 due to the injuries sustained in the
accident. In support of his testimony, he has relied upon his
salary slips for the month of August, 2023, September, 2023 and
October, 2023 and attendance sheet as Ex.PW1/3(colly), his
medical leave certificate as Ex.PW1/5 and copy of complete set
of DAR as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly). The copy of salary slip of the
petitioner for the month of August 2023 and the medical leave
certificate of the employer of the petitioner has been filed
alongwith the DAR and have been verified by the IO. As per the
certificate bearing No.AB37341 dt. 25.10.2023 issued by
Medical Officer, Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi, the petitioner
was unfit for work for the period 26.09.2023 to 30.10.2023 and
was declared fit to join duty from 1st Nov. 2023. As per the
medical leave certificate issued by the Partner of Nilesh
Creations i.e. the employer of the petitioner, the petitioner was on
medical leave from 26th September to 26th October. The original
attendance record of Nilesh Creations Ex.PW1/3 (Colly) shows
that the petitioner has been continuously absent from work from
26.09.2023 uptil 30.10.2023. As per the salary slip of the
petitioner for the month of October 2023, the petitioner has
attended his office for one day in the month of October, 2023.
Since as per the medical treatment record, the petitioner had
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.17 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:35 +0530
suffered some wounds and lacerations and had also received
sutures and had been visiting the hospital for change of dressings
etc., there appears no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the
petitioner that he had remained absent from work on account of
the injuries sustained in the accident. Even otherwise, no
evidence has been led by the respondents to disprove the claim of
the petitioner. Nothing favourable to the respondents has come
on record in the cross-examination of the petitioner in this regard.
The arguments of the counsel for respondent no. 3 that the
petitioner could not have suffered any loss of income as he had
only received simple injuries, is in the opinion of this Tribunal
without any merit. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled to
compensation for loss of income for the period 26.09.2023 uptil
30.10.2023.
8.5(ii) As per salary slip for the month of August, 2023, the
petitioner was working as Sample Master with Nilesh Creations
and was earning Rs.66,750/- per month. As per the salary slip for
the month of October, 2023, the petitioner was paid wages of
Rs.2500/- for 1 day.
8.5(iii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured
needs to be considered as Rs.66,750/- per month on the date of
accident and per day wage is considered as Rs.2500/-.
8.5(iv) Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of
sum of Rs.76,750/- [Rs.2500/- x 5 days (for absence from
26.09.2023 to 30.09.2023) + Rs.66,750- Rs.2500/- (for absence
of work from 01.10.2023 to 30.10.2023) towards loss of income
during treatment period.
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.18 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:38 +0530
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
8.6 Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot
be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while
assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain
& suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken
into account including victim’s age, nature of injury, parts of
body where injuries occurred, surgeries, if any, duration of
hospitalization and treatment, the unusual deprivation suffered by
victim and effect thereof on his future life. As per the medical
documents of injured on record, the petitioner has suffered
simple injuries and has remained under treatment for around one
month. In view of the same, the petitioner is held entitled for a
compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the
petitioner.
SPECIAL DIET
8.7 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by
the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the
judgment. Thus, considering the same, this Tribunal deems it fit
to grant compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred
on special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
8.8 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by
petitioner and the period of treatment undergone, which have
already been discussed in the foregoing part of this award, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must have required the
assistance of some attendant may be that of his family members
atleast for sometime and during visits to hospitals for dressing etc.
It is a settled law that for grant of compensation for attendant
charges, the necessity of employment of the attendant is not
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.19 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:41 +0530
required and the petitioner is required to be compensated even for
value of services of his family members. (refer: DTC & Ors. vs.
Lalita, 1983 ACJ 253). Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it
appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant
charges.
CONVEYANCE CHARGES
8.9 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 and treatment
taken by him, this Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.10,000/-
towards expenses incurred on conveyance.
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE
PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.11,239/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL
future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.76,750/-
treatment period
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000/-
5. Special Diet Rs.10,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs. 1,47,989/-
9. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is
held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.1,47,989/- (Rupees
One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty
Nine Only).
LIABILITY :
10.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.20 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:44
+0530
Company that driver/respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving license at the time of incident. The respondent
no.3 has examined Sh. Suryansh Dixit, Legal Manager as R3W1.
He has exhibited copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1(colly),
legal notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/2 and
postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/3 & Ex.R3W1/4 in his evidence.
R3W1 has deposed that the notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC has not
been replied by the respondent no. 1 & 2. The testimony of
R3W1 has remained unrebutted.
10.2 Section 3/181 of the MV Act has been invoked
against respondent no.1 in the chargesheet. IO has filed kalandara
U/s 5/180 M.V. Act against the respondent no. 2. DAR clearly
mentions that the respondent no.1 was driving offending vehicle
without license. No driving license has been produced on record
by respondents. Therefore, it stands established that the
respondent no.1 was not holding any valid driving license to
drive the vehicle in question at the time of incident. Hence, it is
established on record that respondent no.1 & 2 have violated the
terms of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the respondent no. 1
& 2 are held liable to pay the compensation amount to the
petitioner. However, since the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no.3, merely because the accident happened after
01.02.2022, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from
its liability to pay the award amount to the petitioner.
10.3 The MV Act is a social welfare legislation enacted
amongst other purposes for the benefit of the victim of Road
Traffic Accident and for speedy disposal of such cases. A mere
glance at the aims and objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.21 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:46 +0530
and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 would show
that one of the main objective that the act aims to achieve is to
ensure expeditious help to accident victim and their families.
The act provides compulsory insurance qua third party risk
making the insurance company liable to reimburse the insured in
case of any liability incurred by him towards third party, arising
out of motor vehicle accident involving his vehicle. The act aims
at providing compensation to the victim of the accident who have
suffered injuries ‘grievous or simple’ or the loss of their loved
ones to ensure that they are able to lead a decent life post
accident. Though the compensation awarded to a victim of a
accident under the MV Act cannot relegate the person to the
same position as he was in, before the accident, yet the financial
assistance provided to him in the form of compensation provides
some ray of light to him and enables him to lead a decent life
post accident. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the
compensation to which a victim of an accident is held entitled in
the judgment or an award passed by MACT Tribunal, is made
available to him without any delay and the victim is not made to
run from pillar to post to obtain the same and also does not have
to wait for years and years to receive the compensation. Any
delay in payment of compensation would amount to rendering
the provisions of the MV Act meaningless. It also cannot be lost
sight of that where the driver and the owner are the persons with
weak financial background, the payment of the compensation to
the victim would infact become impossible.
10.4 Recently, a similar issue was raised before the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in matter of “ICICI Lombard
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.22 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:49 +0530
General Insurance Company Vs. Arti Devi & Ors“, First Appeal
from order No.1780 of 2024. The Hon’ble High Court vide order
dated 31.01.2025 held that the principle of pay & recover would
still be applicable. The relevant part of the judgment is
reproduced here as under:-
“21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section 149
prior to amendment as replaced by sub- Section (4) of Section
150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully examined, the
words “shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be
covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section
147, be of no effect” would only mean that under the
circumstances covered by sub-Section (4), either of Section 149
or Section 150, the insurer would be well within its rights to
avoid liability flowing from the insurance policy. Meaning
thereby that the insurer would be absolved of bearing liability to
pay compensation to the claimants. It does not mean that the
insurer would also be absolved from its liability to indemnify the
owner’s risk. Such indemnification will still continue to remain
alive and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation
through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover
from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall
have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an
event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it would
be compensated through recovery from the owner. The aforesaid
provisions are expressly to give defence to the insurer and have to
be read to that extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to
indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if
the proviso to sub- Section (4) would not have been there before
the amendment, the indemnification concept would have till
remained alive and operative and, hence, mere omission of the
proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every
case, liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the
Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing
grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior
to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after
amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The
reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said
provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the
Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e,
holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have an
award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the
situation where award is against the owner and insurer is made
liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the
same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as required under
Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has now been added in
Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a case where premium is
not received by the Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of
challenge so as to avoid passing of award against it and, in that
event also, award would be drawn against the owner. When
payment or non-payment of premium is significant after
amendment and has been made a ground of defence, the CourtRajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.23 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:19:51
+0530
observes that a third party risk is covered under the policy which
is a contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the
insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to
subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is received
and non-payment hereof would absolve the Insurance Company
from its liability of an award being passed against it.
23-24 xxx
25. The Court cannot overlook an aspect that Section 147(5)
of the Act, prior to amendment has been replaced by Section
147(6) of the Act after amendment but there are no qualifying
words referable to section 150. Sub-section (6) of section 147
reads as under:-
“(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under
this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of
persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which
the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those
classes of persons.”
From renumbering of the sub-section, as above, it follows that
once the liability to indemnify the person specified in the policy,
as per sub-section (6) of Section 147, even after amendment,
continues to exist in the Statute book and it excludes applicability
of any other law for the time being in force, indemnification by
the insurer does not vanish even after amendments incorporated
by the Act of 2019. The right to recover the amount paid to the
claimants as per conditions mentioned in section 150 would still
be available to the insurer as indemnification has not been taken
away by the legislature nor has it been explained by adding
words to section 147 or anywhere else.
26. This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is
between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the
claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used
in Section 149 (prior to amendment) and Section 150 (after
amendment) would show that notwithstanding the fact that the
insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account
of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to
the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company
cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same has
nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the
amount from insurer. It means that claimants’ right to receive
compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected
by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract
between the insurer and the owner.
27. Words “no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub-
ection (1)” used either in Section 149 of the Act of 1988 (prior to
amendment) in Section 150 (after amendment) would mean that if
the grounds of defence set-forth in sub-section (2) of Section 149
or Section 150, as the case may be, exist, no sum shall be payable
by the insurer. It does not mean that the sum shall not be paid by
the insurer if the award contains a direction to the insurer to pay
and recover. Liability to pay the amount has to be segregated
from actual payment made by the insurer in case of survival and
existence of insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the Act.
Word “liability” has to be understood as the “final liability to
bear the award for all time to come” separate from concept of
indemnification by the insurer by making immediate payment.
28. xxx
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.24 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:54 +0530
29. Therefore, when the provisions of the Act of 1988 are read
with C.P.C., it becomes clear that as soon as an award is passed,
the claimants become entitled to get the amount of compensation
and they get financial relief even during the pendency of the
appeal filed by the insurer.
30. xxx
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and clause
51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was never to
withdraw protection and reliefs as regards compensation ensured
by the previous existing provisions. Rather, the Bill strives more
towards ensuring expeditious help to the accident victims and
their families. The emotional and social trauma caused to the
family which loses its bread winner, is still one of the special
considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill was
brought with an object to replace the existing provisions of
insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide
expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There is
nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which may,
either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer’s liability
to pay compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in
case of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of
similar grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the
purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was
clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident
victims and their dependents and not to create a situation where
they are made to run from pillar to post even after an award is
declared in their favour.
32-37. xxx
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso
attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes away the
liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its right to recover
the said amount from the owner. The law to this effect remains
intact and unaffected by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence,
insurer shall continue to indemnify the owner’s risk in relation to
accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and “PAY & RECOVER”
principle will still continue to govern the field advancing social
object of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of
law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC
109 has not lost its significance and binding effect despite
omission of proviso. Held accordingly.”
Emphasis supplied.
10.5 From the above discussions, it is clear that the
exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the
compensation to the petitioner would render award meaningless
and would be against the benevolent provisions of the MV Act.
10.6 It would be also apposite to mention here that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “United India
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.25 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:56 +0530
General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Santro Devi & Ors” (2009) 1
SCC 558 has observed as under:-
“14. The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to
advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice
doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the
insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot
be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill
the statutory requirements of formation of a valid contract but in
case of a third party risk, the question has to be considered from a
different angle. It was further held that Section 146 of the Act gives
complete protection to third party in respect of or bodily injury or
damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place.
For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made
compulsory to the vehicle or to the owner. This would further
reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of
Thirty party…”
10.7 It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in
“National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors“, a
question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) vis a vis the proviso to sub-section 4 & 5 of the said Section
of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as it then existed, was raised
before Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the
insurance company that the defences provided in Section 149(2)
must be allowed to be invoked by the insurer to its full effect and
once the defence is proved, the Tribunal should be bound to
discharge the insurer and affix the liability only on the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle without any directions to pay the
award amount and recover the same from the owner. The
hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment while referring to Section
149(1) of the MV Act as it then existed (now Section 150(1) of
the MV Act as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 2019 adopted a liberal approach to protect the rights of third
party and held that even if, the insurance company is able to
establish its defence under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, the
insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree with the
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.26 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:19:58 +0530
right to recover the same from the owner. It was held that the
liability of the insurer arises from the contract as well as the
statute and therefore, it would not be proper to apply the rules of
interpretation of contract in interpreting a statute. It was held by
the Hon’ble Court:-
“Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable
only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an
independent provision and must be read in the context of Section
96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one
thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability
owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is
another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted,
the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as
sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor any effective
meaning can be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance
company contained in sub-section (1). The decision in Kamla’s
case (supra) has to be read in the aforementioned context.
Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a
liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The
insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and,
therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not
have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is
made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount
paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this
interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act
having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation
where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section
(7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the
Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said
provision must be read with sub- section (1) thereof. The right to
avoid liability in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 149 is
restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to
say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence
but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence
has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the
decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same
from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require
contextual reading.”
10.8 Section 149(1) of the MV Act, 1988 (as it existed
prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) has now
been renumbered as Section 150(1) of the MV Act 1988 (as
amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) and thus,
the said provision in its letter and spirit still exists on the statute
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.27 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:20:01
+0530
book, and, therefore, the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) is
still binding upon this Tribunal.
10.9 It would also be apposite to reproduce the following
findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra):-
“The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in
these petitions are as follows:-
“(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing
compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a
social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to
victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The
provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are
with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be
so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed
under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii)-(vii). Xxx
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person
having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be
liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with
Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the
accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to
property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said
power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se
between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer
and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for
compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences
to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and
jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the
insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se
between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of
claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made
thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as
provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution
of the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal
arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved
its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2)
read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the
Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by
the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has
been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the
tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be
enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the
insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal
to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act
as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the
recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-
section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the
amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.28 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:20:03 +0530
the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso
thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover
specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to
recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of
the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be
extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by
relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where
on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter
se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.”
10.10 Thus, even in cases where the insurance company
has been able to make out a defence as per the provision of
149(2) [now Section 150(2)], the insurance company has been
held liable to pay the compensation amount and recover the same
from the insured.
10.11 In view of the foregoing discussion, the binding
precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Section 150 sub-
section 1 & 5 of the MV Act, 1988, Section 147(6) of the MV
Act, 1988 and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad
in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited (supra),
the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable to meet
the ends of justice. Accordingly, the insurance company is held
liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as a valid policy
was effective on the date of the accident and shall also be
entitled to recover the said amount from the insured as per
contract between them. Hence, insurance company is directed
to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioners.
RELIEF:-
11. In view of the above discussion and findings on
issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.1,47,989/-
(Rupees One Lakh Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred
and Eighty Nine Only). along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing the DAR i.e.16.03.2024 till the
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.29 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:05 +0530
date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent
no.3/Insurance Company 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 30 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. In case of any
delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT
12. Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of
MCTAP was recorded on 16.02.2026. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement,
it is hereby ordered that entire award amount along with
interest accrued shall be released to the petitioner through his
saving bank account bearing No. 44152049648 maintained
with SBI Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi, IFSC Code:
SBIN0000726.
13. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the
above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank
account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules.
14. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph,
specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of
residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.30 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:07 +0530
Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information
and necessary compliance.
15. 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 27.03.2026.
16. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties
free of cost through email.
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
18. 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.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 20th of February, 2026
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/20.02.2026
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.31 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:10 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 26.09.2023
2. Name of the injured : Rajender Prasad @ Rajesh
Kumar Sutar
3. Age of the injured : DOB: 1981
4. Occupation of the injured: Sample Master
5. Income of the injured : Rs.66,750/-
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken : 26.09.2023 till 31.10.2023
8. Period of Hospitalization : None
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? : No
If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.11,239/-
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.76,750/-
(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
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.32 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:12 +0530
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(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 NA
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NA
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NA
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.1,47,989/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.25,676/-
the date of award (w.e.f.16.03.2024 to
20.02.2026 i.e. 1 year 11
months and 4 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.1,73,665/-
INCLUDING (Rs.1,47,989/- +
INTEREST Rs.25,676/-)
18. Award amount released Entire award amount +
interest accrued
19. Award amount kept in Nil
FDRs
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.33 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21 17:20:14
+0530
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 27.03.2026
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/20.02.2026
Rajender Kumar Sutar vs. Sonu Sharma & Ors.
[MACT No.170/2024] Page No.34 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.21
17:20:17 +0530
