Delhi District Court
Sukh Nath vs Ram Bhawan And Anr on 21 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.: 7/24
CNR No. DLSH01-000075-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Sukh Nath
S/o Sh. Late Shankar Lal
R/o H No. 378/379, H Block,
Old Seemapuri, JJ Colony, Delhi-110095.
........ Petitioner/injured
Vs.
1. Sh. Ram Bhawan
S/o Sh. Ramjeet
R/o H No. C2/914, Sec-27,
Resettlement Colony, Rohini,
North West, Delhi-110085.
.... (Driver cum
owner)
2. Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd.
Local Office address: 503, 5th floor, Mercantile House,
15, KG Marg, Barakhamba, New Delhi-110001.
..... (Insurer)
... Respondents
Date of institution of claim petition : 06.01.2024
Date of Arguments : 21.02.2026
Date of Award : 21.02.2026
Advocates appearing in the cases:
For petitioner : Sh. Sanjay Sharma and
Sh. Rohit Jain
For R1/R2 : Sh. S K Tiwari
For respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance Co. : Sh. Naresh Kumar
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 1 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:04:52
+0530
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the MACT claim petition
bearing no. 7/24, under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
filed by the petitioner and against the respondents as mentioned in the
memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 15.07.2022, at about
04:30 pm, petitioner Sukh Nath was going to Seemapuri, Delhi from Teela
Mode, Ghaziabad, U.P., in a Auto bearing registration no. UP14DT-1145. It
has been alleged that when he reached near Indian Petrol Pump, Bhopura,
Ghaziabad, within the jurisdiction of PS Teelamod, Dist. Ghaziabad, one
Tata Goods Carrier bearing registration no. DL-1LX-1025 (hereinafter
referred to as offending vehicle), came at a very high speed and hit the
aforesaid Auto of the petitioner with a great force. It has been further
alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver i.e.
respondent no. 1 (R1) herein, at a very high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner without taking necessary precautions at the time of the
accident. Allegedly, the above-said Sukh Nath sustained grievous injuries
due to the impact of hit by the offending vehicle and he was thereon
immediately taken to Karuna hospital, Dilshad Colony, Delhi, where his
MLC was prepared vide MLC No. 18/KH/2022. An FIR in this regard was
also registered at PS Teelamod, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P, vide FIR no.
358/2022, for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC. The present claim petition
thereafter came to be filed in due course on 06.01.2024.
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 2 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:04:58
+0530
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. In its WS filed by R1/R2, being the driver cum owner of the offending
vehicle, it has been contended that the alleged offending vehicle was not
involved in the said accident. It has been further contended that the
respondent was having valid documents i.e. Driving license, RC, fitness and
insurance policy at the time of the accident. However, the respondent
denied all the averments of the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Zuno/Edleweiss General Insurance Company
Ltd., also filed its separate detailed written statement, wherein it has been
admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide
insurance policy no. 835003840, issued in the name of Ram Bhawan, (i.e.
R1/R2 herein), with its validity from 07.06.2022 till 06.06.2023. However,
the respondent no. 3 denied the contents of the claim petition and prayed for
its dismissal.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by
the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 25.09.2024, as under:-
(i) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
15.07.2022 at about 04:30 pm at near Indian Petrol Pump, Bhopura,
Ghaziabad, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Teelamod, Ghaziabad, U.P. due
to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL1LX-1025 being
driven by respondent no. 1/driver ? OPP.
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent
and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 3 of 23
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:05:03
+0530
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1.
He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/1, wherein he
reiterated the contents of the claim petition and relied upon the following
documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
01 Ex.PW-1/A (OSR) Copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
02 Ex.PW-1/B (OSR) Copy of PAN card of petitioner
03 Ex.PW-1/C (OSR) Copy of Voter card of petitioner
04 Ex.PW-1/D Disability certificate of petitioner
05 Ex.PW-1/E (Colly) Original medical bills, medical bill summary
and treatment record of petitioner
06 Ex.PW-1/F (Colly) Certified copy of criminal case pertaining to
the incident in question
He was cross examined and discharged.
6. The petitioner did not examine any other witness and PE stood closed
by The Tribunal vide order dated 29.01.2025, in view of the separate
statement of Ld. Counsel for petitioner recorded to this effect.
Respondents’ Evidence
7. The R1/R2 failed to lead any evidence despite sufficient opportunities
being granted in this regard and RE for R1/R2 was closed by the Tribunal
vide order dated 02.04.2025, while RE for R3 i.e. insurance company was
closed in view of the separate statement of Ld. Counsel for R3 recorded
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 4 of 23
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:05:08
+0530
separately to this effect on the same date on 02.04.2025.
8. Final arguments heard. File perused.
Issue wise findings
Issue no.1
Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
15.07.2022 at about 04:30 pm at near Indian Petrol Pump, Bhopura,
Ghaziabad, U.P. within the jurisdiction of PS Teelamod, Ghaziabad, U.P. due
to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL1LX-1025 being
driven by respondent no. 1/driver ? OPP.
9. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases
and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of
probabilities. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings
conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that followed by a civil court
and in civil matters the facts are required to be established by
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or
beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The
burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this
burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard
can be made to the propositions of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors,
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 5 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:05:12
+0530
2011 (1) SCR 1906 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) and also recently in
another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law
Suit (SC) 303.
10. Herein the present case, the petitioner has examined himself as the
star witness to show that the R-1 being the driver of the offending vehicle
was rash and negligent in his driving of the offending vehicle and that
grievous injuries were caused to him on account of the accident in question.
It has been specifically stated by the petitioner (PW-1) that his Auto was hit
by the offending vehicle being driven by R-1. The said assertions made by
the petitioner while deposing as PW-1 have remained unimpeached despite
his extensive cross examination by the respondents. The claim put forth by
the petitioner and the contentions regarding the rash and negligent act of
R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident is duly
corroborated by the findings of the IO/police as mentioned in the
mechanical inspection report, seizure memo and Charge sheet along with
other documents pertaining to criminal case in respect of the incident in
question brought on record as Ex. PW1/F (colly) and no ground has been
made out by the respondents to disbelieve the same. The testimony of
petitioner as PW-1 has remained consistent and no doubt has been raised by
the respondents to disbelieve the same in any manner. The PW-1 has even
stated specifically during his cross-examination that the auto in which he
was travelling was being driven at a moderate speed by its driver and no
material has been brought on record by the respondents to show any fault on
part of the auto driver.
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 6 of 23 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.21 17:05:16 +0530
11. The only contention raised in the defence by the respondents is the
late registration of FIR in respect of the incident in question. However, the
delay has been duly explained by PW-1 during his cross-examination,
wherein he has stated that the FIR could not be registered on time due to
jurisdiction issue. At the same time, the issue regarding limitation in filing
of the claim petition in the present case already stood decided by the Ld.
Predecessor vide order dated 25.09.2024 and the said order attained finality
on account of being not challenged by the respondents till the date of final
disposal of the claim petition.
12. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an
accused in case FIR No. 358/22, PS Teelamod, Distt. Ghaziabad, for the
offences u/s 279/338 IPC, is also a strong circumstance to support the above
said testimony of PW-1 on these issues. At the same time, it is an admitted
fact on record that the R-1 has been charge-sheeted in the criminal case
pertaining to the incident in question. The position of law in this regard has
been made clear in the case of “National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha Rana”,
2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it has been held that filing of Chargesheet is
sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle.
Similar observations have been made in the case of “United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors.“, 2014 (2) Tac 846 Del, that if the
claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record pertaining to
involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal records
showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of Chargesheet
under Section 279/338/304-A/427 IPC against the driver have been proved,
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 7 of 23
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:05:21
+0530
then, the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that
the driver was negligent in causing the accident. Where FIR is lodged,
Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver after causing the
accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents mentioned above
are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle
was negligent in causing the accident particularly when there was no
defence available from his side before the Learned Tribunal. The position of
law has been recently reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as
“Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr.” Arising out of SLP (C )
No. 10351/2019, wherein it has been held that:-
“It is settled in law that once a charge-sheet has been filed and the
driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that
the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye
witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the
deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.”
13. Besides the above, respondent no. 1 namely Ram Bhawan was the best
witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the
depositions being made by PW-1 regarding the above accident and its
manner etc., but he has not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on this
aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of the
law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi).
14. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending
vehicle being driven by R-1 at the relevant time had indeed hit the petitioner
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 8 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:05:25
+0530
thus resulting into grievous injury being caused to the petitioner.
15. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful
act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under
which his vehicle (i.e. the offending vehicle) hit the Auto of the petitioner
and thus caused grievous injuries to the petitioner. In the absence of any
averment or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending
vehicle or any material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on
the part of the injured or any other such person, the only inference possible
in the given facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part
of R-1 in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the
above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross
neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time
leading to the grievous injuries to petitioner.
16. In view of the medical treatment documents placed on record by the
petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by
him in the incident in question. Furthermore, perusal of the disability
certificate reveals that the petitioner has suffered 22% permanent locomotor
disability in relation to right lower limb due to the injuries suffered by him
on account of the rash and negligent act of R-1.
17. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal has no
hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the petitioner suffered
grievous injuries on his person on account of neglect and default of R-1 in
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 9 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:05:29 +0530
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The issue at hand is thus
hereby decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner
accordingly.
Issue no. (ii)
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP.
18. In view of the finding on Issue no. 1, petitioner Sukh Nath is entitled
to get compensation. However, quantum of compensation still needs to be
adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the
claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and
reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall
or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the
physical injury : he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result
of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord
Reid).
19. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of
compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt.
Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
“Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be
assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms ofMACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 10 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:05:33 +0530
money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may,
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to be
suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or
sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on
account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned
is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment,
hardship, frustration and mental stress in life.”
20. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation
of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are
reproduced as under:
5. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the
Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent possible,
fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior
to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make
good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as
money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or
fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of
disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not
only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a
full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which
he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 11 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:05:37 +0530
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary Damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(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 to pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence
of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (I), (ii), (a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical
evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii), (b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account
of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of
amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life.
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 12 of 23 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date: 2026.02.21 17:05:42 +0530 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
21. As per the medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner/
injured Sukh Nath, the latter sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in
this case.
Nature of Injuries: As per the MLC of the victim/injured, the
latter suffered “compound lacerated wound on right toe and fracture of lateral
malleolus and of neck of second toe proximal phalanx”. The injuries suffered
by the petitioner resulted into permanent locomotor disability of 22% in
relation to right lower limb and the said disability is non progressive, but likely
to improve. The disability certificate has been proved on record by the
petitioner as Ex. PW1/D.
Disability, if any: As per the aforementioned disability
certificate, the petitioner has suffered permanent physical disability of 22%
in relation to right lower limb . The petitioner claims to be working as a
Carpenter and was reportedly earning Rs.30,000/- per month and as such he
needs fully functional limbs to continue his profession for earning his
livelihood. Therefore, keeping in view the said nature of injuries and the
permanent disability suffered by the petitioner as aforesaid, the Tribunal is
of the opinion that the petitioner will suffer a functional disability of 10%
and hence, the functional disability of the petitioner is hereby assessed to be
10%.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
22. In the present case, as per the material brought on record, the
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 13 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:05:49 +0530
petitioner / injured has undergone entire treatment at Karuna Hospital,
where he remained treated for his injuries on 15.07.2022 and was
discharged on the same day after the accident. Moreover, the petitioner has
filed bills for his treatment from different medicos/medical centres and the
bills for his medicines as per the prescription slip of his treatment. The
petitioner has brought on record bills totaling Rs.23,721/- as the cost of his
medicines borne by him during the treatment and the same have not been
denied or disputed by the respondents. There is no reason to doubt the
veracity or genuineness of the said bill/ receipt. In these circumstances and
in view of the material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to
sum of Rs. 23,721/- and accordingly, the petitioner / injured Sukh Nath is
hereby awarded the said amount i.e. Rs.23,721/- towards Medicines and
Medical Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
23. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner /
injured Sukh Nath has suffered ” compound lacerated wound on right toe and
fracture of lateral malleolus and of neck of second toe proximal phalanx ” and
he had to be operated for the same. In these circumstances, the petitioner /
injured must have visited the hospital / doctors for his treatment and would
also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the injuries
sustained in the accident. In the present case, the petitioner must have
undergone treatment for about 3 month from the date of accident as is
apparent from his treatment record. In these circumstances and in view of
the material on record, the petitioner/injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 14 of 23 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.21 17:05:54 +0530
15,000/- towards conveyance charges for his visit to the various hospitals.
Further, in view of the above-said grievous injuries suffered by him, the
petitioner / injured must have needed special diet for a similar period to
have a fast and proper recovery. Hence, the petitioner/injured is hereby
awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards expenses for special diet.
LOSS OF INCOME
24. Petitioner Sukh Nath (PW-1) in his deposition has stated that at the
time of accident, he was doing work of carpentary and that he was earning
Rs. 30,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence in this regard
has been placed on record to substantiate that the petitioner was indeed
engaged in a job or that he had acquired any specific skill. Therefore, this
Tribunal has thus assessed the income of injured petitioner at parity with
minimum wages of ‘unskilled worker’ of Delhi prevalent at the time of
accident i.e. Rs.16,506/- per month, as the petitioner happens to be a
resident of Delhi. Furthermore, the Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner
must have suffered loss of earning for a reasonable period of 03 months
during the course of his treatment for the injuries suffered in the accident.
Hence, petitioner is hereby held entitled to a sum of Rs. 16,506/- X 03
months = Rs. 49,518/- under the head Loss of Income during the treatment.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
25. The petitioner/injured Sukh Nath has not deposed anything about
keeping an attendant or spending any money on an attendant during the time
of his treatment for the injuries suffered by him on account of incident in
question. Moreover, neither any attendant has been examined nor any
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 15 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:05:58
+0530
documentary proof regarding the payment being made to any such attendant
have been brought on record by the petitioner/injured in this case.
Nevertheless, considering the nature of injuries, extensive treatment and the
prolonged recovery period, the petitioner must have required the services of
an attendant for about three months. It is pertinent to note that the
petitioner/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him,
even if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his
family members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.
Vs. Lalita (AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards
gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members. Further, the
petitioner must have spent at least Rs. 7,000/- per month if he had an
attendant. In these circumstances, the petitioner shall be entitled to an
amount of Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 7,000 X 3 months) towards attendant charges.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
26. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain and sufferings, the
following factors have to be taken into account:-
(a) Nature of injury (b) Parts of body where injuries occurred (c) Surgeries, if any (d) Confinement in hospital (e) Duration of the treatment
27. In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered 22% permanent physical
disability in relation to right lower limb, but the same will not render him as
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 16 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:06:03
+0530
100% disabled person for several jobs and day to day activities of life.
However, undergoing the operation/treatment for the injuries suffered by
the petitioner would have caused him unimaginable pain and sufferings. In
these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as
Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (C) No.
5649-51 of 2012), the petitioner / injured is entitled to compensation on
account of pain and suffering due to the accident. The pain and sufferings of
petitioner / injured cannot be adequately compensated in terms of money as
no amount of money can be substitute for the lost function of a limb, but
nevertheless, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is hereby awarded to petitioner towards
the head “pain and sufferings”.
LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES
28. The petitioner / injured Sukh Nath has claimed that he has suffered
loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident.
The petitioner / injured was about 68 years old at the time of accident and
has suffered grievous injuries. His permanent disability would hinder his
daily activities as well as his enjoyment of life. Loss of ability to indulge in
physical activity is also likely to adversely affect his overall health. In these
circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha
Jain (Supra), the petitioner / injured is hereby awarded a sum of Rs.
15,000/- as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities.
In addition to this, the petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as
just and fair compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him
due to the accident in this case.
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 17 of 23 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2026.02.21 17:06:07 +0530 LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
29. The petitioner in this case happened to be 68 years of age and was
married at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the petitioner has neither
contended nor he has claimed any loss of marriage prospects on account of
the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. The petitioner has
kept completely silent in this regard and it appears that no loss has been
caused to or suffered by the petitioner in respect of marriage prospects due
to the injuries suffered by him. Hence, no compensation is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME / PROSPECTS
30. In the present case, as per medical record, petitioner / injured Sukh
Nath is a case of ” compound lacerated wound on right toe and fracture of
lateral malleolus and of neck of second toe proximal phalanx ” and has
permanent locomotor impairment of 22% in relation to his right lower limb
and has received treatment for about 03 months. As discussed above, the
income of the petitioner has been assessed as Rs. 16,506/- per month at the
time of accident and it has already been held that the injuries suffered by the
petitioner would result in 10% functional disability in pursuing the
profession of carpentary by the petitioner. Further in terms of the principles
laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 (13)
SCALE 12), the petitioner is also entitled to future prospects.
AGE: As per his Aadhar card on record as Ex. PW1/B, the petitioner
was born on 08.05.1954. Thus, at the time of accident, he was about 68
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 18 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:06:11
+0530
years old. Further in terms of the principles laid down in the case Sarla
Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 2104), a multiplier of 5 would be applicable
to the present case. Hence, he will be entitled to future prospects @ 0% as
he was above the age of 60 years at the time of accident and was self
employed. Therefore, the loss of future prospects / income is calculated as:
Minimum wages Rs. 16,506/- X 0% (Future Prospects) Rs. 0/-
Rs. 16,506/- + Rs. 0/- Rs. 16,506/- Rs. 16,506/- X 10% (Disability) Rs. 1,650.6/- Rs. 1,650.6/- X 12 X 5 (Multiplier) Rs. 99,036/-
Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.
99,036/- under this head.
31. The break-up of compensation that has been awarded to petitioner/
injured Sukh Nath is tabulated as below:-
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.)
1 Medicines and Treatment 23,721.00
2 Conveyance 15,000.00
3 Special Diet 15,000.00
4 Loss of income 49,518.00
5 Attendant Charges 21,000.00
6 Pain and Sufferings 15,000.00
7 Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities 15,000.00
8 Compensation for mental and physical 15,000.00
shock
9 Loss of marriage prospects 00.00
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 19 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:06:17 +0530
10 Loss of future income / prospects 99,036.00
Total 2,68,275.00
LIABILITY
32. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay
the compensation amount. Herein, it is pertinent to note that the respondent
no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has specifically admitted in its written
statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident
with respondent no. 3, vide policy bearing no. 835003840, issued in the
name of Ram Bhawan, (i.e. R1/R2 herein) with its validity from 07.06.2022
till 06.06.2023. At the same time, the respondent no. 3/insurance company
has failed to bring on record or to prove any breach of the terms or
conditions of the said insurance policy by the R1/R2 in any manner.
33. Hence, on the basis of entire above stated facts and circumstances and
discussion of evidence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent no. 3
i.e. insurance company, is liable to pay the entire compensation to the
petitioners on behalf of R1/R2, without any recovery rights.
RELIEF
34. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioner is
hereby awarded a sum of Rs.2,68,275/- (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Eight
Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Five Only) along with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its deposition by the
insurer i.e. respondent no. 3. However, it is directed that the amount of
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 20 of 23
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:06:23
+0530
interim award along with waiver of interest, if any, shall be excluded from
the above amount and calculations of compensation.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONER
35. Finally, out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner Sh. Sukh
Nath is hereby awarded Rs.2,68,275/-, out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- is
directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi
bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in
the form of 10 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 20,000/-
payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 10 months in succession, as
per the scheme formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order
dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs.
Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in
his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD
Branch, Delhi. Remaining amount of Rs.68,275/- and the interest
component to be paid by the respondent no. 3 is directed to be released into
his savings account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by him as per his
volition.
36. The FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject
to the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the
statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity andMACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 21 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.02.21
17:06:30
+0530
maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit
card to claimant / his guardian. However, in case the debit card and /or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before
the disbursement of the award amount.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant
to the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and
shall not be issued without the permission of the Court.
37. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed
to deposit the award amount with interest @ 8% per annum till date with
UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order,
failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a
for the period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank,
Karkardooma Court Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the
petitioner in his bank account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on
completing necessary formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is
further directed to keep the said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this
Court in auto renewal mode every 15 days, till the claimants approach the
bank for disbursement, so that the award amount starts earning interest from
the date of clearance of the cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 22 of 23
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.02.21
17:06:34 +0530
official website of Delhi District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
38. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of
the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to
counsel for the respondents/insurance company for compliance. Copy of
this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of
bank passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to
Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for
information and necessary compliance.
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Announced in open Court on this PRATAP
Date:
2026.02.21
21st Day of February, 2026 17:06:39
+0530
(HARUN PRATAP)
PO-(MACT-02), SHAHDARA
KKD COURTS/DELHI.
MACT No. 07/24 Sukh Nath Vs. Ram Bhawan & Anr. Page No. 23 of 23
