Delhi District Court
Sanjay Kumar (Dar) vs Manish (184/19Oia) on 10 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 850/2025
FIR No. 184/2019
PS OIA
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01-010052-2025
Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors.
Sanjay Kumar
S/o Lala Ram
R/o K-1356, 16A, K Block
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
Versus
1. Manish
S/o Madan Mandal
R/o Gali No.08, Jagmal Enclave
Roshan Nagar, Auganpur Village
Faridabad, Haryana.
..R-1/ Driver
2. Mukesh Kumar Mandal
S/o Madan Mandal
R/o A-225, Mavi Mohalla Tehkhand
Okhla Phase-1, Okhla Ind. Area, New Delhi.
..R-2/ Owner
3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi.
....R-3/ Insurance Co.
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 1 of 36
Date of accident : 15.03.2019
Date of filing of DAR : 07.12.2021
Date of Decision : 10.03.2026
AWARD
1. DAR
(a) The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
"DAR"), as filed by the Investigating Officer, is being treated as
a claim petition under Section 166(1) read with Section 166(4) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The present claim pertains to the
alleged road traffic accident to victim Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter
referred to as the injured), who is stated to have suffered injuries
due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing
Registration No. DL 3SCW 2719. The said vehicle was being
driven by Sh. Manish (hereinafter referred to as R-1), owned by
Sh. Mukesh Kumar Mandal (hereinafter referred to as
Respondent No.2) and was insured with M/s New India
Insurance Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Respondent
No.3).
2. Brief Facts as per DAR:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident in question
was received at PS Okhla Industrial Area vide Diary No.
559/2019 dated 19.06.2019 in the form of a complaint made by
the injured. In his complaint, the injured stated that on
15.03.2019 at about 08:30 AM, he was proceeding to his
workplace on his motorcycle bearing registration No.
DL-3SCK-5042 (hereinafter referred to as the accidental
vehicle). When he was passing through the street near DDA
Flats, Okhla Phase-II, his motorcycle was hit from the left side
by respondent no.1 (R-1), who was coming from the wrong side
while driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 2 of 36
manner. Due to the impact, the injured fell on the road and
sustained serious injuries.
(b) It was further stated that he made a call to the PCR at
number 100, pursuant to which the PCR van arrived at the spot
and took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre where he underwent
treatment for fracture of both bones of his right leg. He informed
that his leg remained plastered for about two months. The injured
further stated that the police officials seized the offending vehicle
and advised him to continue his treatment, assuring him that legal
action would be taken against the driver of the offending vehicle.
He also stated that the police officials had assured him that they
would come to the hospital to record his statement; however,
neither any police official came to record his statement nor was
any FIR registered at that time.
(c) After recording the statement of the injured, the present
FIR was eventually registered under the relevant penal provisions
of law. During investigation, the site plan was prepared and
statements of the concerned witnesses were recorded.
Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted.
Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was served
upon the owner of the offending vehicle, who appeared before
the police and affirmed that the accident in question had occurred
with the said vehicle. The documents pertaining to the offending
vehicle were seized and verified from the concerned authorities.
The result on the MLC of the injured was obtained which opined
the injuries to be grievous in nature.
(d) After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against respondent no.1 under the relevant provisions of law for
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 3 of 36
causing injuries to the victim by driving the offending vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner. The Detailed Accident Report
(DAR) was also filed by the Investigating Officer.
3. Reply:
(a) In response to the Detailed Accident Report, no written
statement or reply was filed by R-1 & R-2. Their right to file
reply was also closed on 14.03.2022.
(b) The insurance company filed its written statement wherein
it has been alleged that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the deceased/victim himself and not on account of
any rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle. It is
further contended that there was an unexplained delay of about
111 days in the registration of the FIR, which creates doubt
regarding the manner of the accident and suggests false
implication of the insured vehicle. However, the insurance
company has admitted that the offending vehicle was duly
insured with it on the date of the accident, though its liability, if
any, is stated to be subject to the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy.
4. Issues:
(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 14.03.2022:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
15.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
DL 3SCW 2719 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 4 of 36
5. Disability
(a) A disability report noticing 21% permanent physical disability
in relation to right lower limb also received from Pt. Madan
Mohan Malviya Hospital in compliance of order of this Tribunal.
6. Evidence:
(a) The matter was thereafter listed for petitioner's evidence.
The injured, Sanjay Kumar, examined himself as PW-1 and
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which was exhibited
as Ex. PW1/A. He proved on record various documents relating
to his medical treatment records including medical bills, ID
proofs, proofs related to his income/ employment, educational
documents, DAR collectively exhibited as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.
PW1/8. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for
the insurance company.
(b) No further, evidence was led by petitioner side. Petitioner
Evidence was then closed. Matter was then listed for Respondent
Evidence. R-1/ driver & R-2 /owner did not lead any evidence.
Insurance Company also not led any evidence and as such
Respondent Evidence was closed and matter was then listed for
final arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
(a) Final arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the
claimant as well as learned counsel for insurance company.
(b) Learned counsel for the claimant argued that the accident
in question occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving
of respondent no.1, the driver of the offending vehicle. It is
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 5 of 36
submitted that due to the said accident, the claimant sustained
grievous injuries and had to undergo prolonged medical
treatment. The claimant remained under treatment and plaster
was applied for a period of about three months. It is further
submitted that the claimant continued to remain under outdoor
patient (OPD) treatment from 15.03.2019 to 25.07.2022. Learned
counsel further argued that as a result of the injuries suffered in
the accident, the claimant has been assessed with 21% permanent
disability in relation to the right lower limb, which has adversely
affected his functional ability, earning capacity and has also
caused difficulty in performing day-to-day activities. It is also
submitted that at the time of the accident the claimant was
employed in a private job with M/s Paper Smith, Okhla, and was
earning Rs.17,400/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in
the accident, the claimant remained unable to work for a period
of about seven months, thereby suffering loss of income. On
these grounds, learned counsel for the claimant prayed that the
claimant be awarded just and reasonable compensation along
with interest for the injuries, disability, loss of income and other
consequential losses suffered by him. Computation has also been
filed.
(g) Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company
argued that the accident did not occur due to any rash or
negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1 and that the
same occurred due to the negligence of the injured himself. It is
further submitted that there was an inordinate delay of about 111
days in the registration of the FIR, which creates doubt regarding
the manner of the accident and suggests false implication of the
offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the insurance company
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 6 of 36
further submitted that the claim of the petitioner is exaggerated
and not supported by cogent evidence and, therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to the compensation as claimed.
However, it is fairly admitted that the offending vehicle was
insured with the insurance company on the date of the accident.
No statutory defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles
Act has been raised by the insurance company.
8. Discussion:
On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
15.03.2019 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing no.
DL 3SCW 2719 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3? OPP.
(a) The injured stepped into the witness box and affirmed the
mode and manner of the accident in the same terms as stated in
his complaint made to the police. He deposed that on the day of
the accident, while he was proceeding on his motorcycle, the
offending vehicle driven by respondent no.1 came from the
wrong side and hit his motorcycle, due to which he fell on the
road and sustained injuries.
(b) During his cross-examination, the injured stated that he
was conscious at the time of the accident and was able to note the
registration number of the offending vehicle as DL-3SCW-2719.
He also reiterated that he had made a PCR call at number 100,
pursuant to which the PCR van reached the spot and shifted him
to AIIMS Trauma Centre for medical treatment. Nothing material
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 7 of 36
could be elicited in his cross-examination so as to discredit his
testimony regarding the occurrence of the accident.
(c) The version of the injured also finds corroboration from
the contemporaneous medical and police record. The MLC of the
injured records the history of Road Traffic Accident (RTA) and
further notes that the injured was brought to the hospital by a
PCR official, thereby corroborating the statement of the injured
that he had made a PCR call and was shifted to the hospital by
the PCR van. Further, the information regarding the accident
given to the police at number 100 on 15.03.2019 also finds
mention in GD Entry No. 75A, which indicates that the police
authorities were aware of the accident on the very date of
occurrence.
(d) The case of the claimant further finds support from the
police investigation and the documentary material placed on
record. During investigation, the site plan of the place of accident
was prepared, the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle
was conducted, and other relevant documents were collected.
After completion of investigation, the police found sufficient
material and accordingly filed a charge-sheet against respondent
no.1 for causing the accident by driving the offending vehicle in
a rash and negligent manner.
(e) The injured was also questioned during his cross-
examination regarding the delay in registration of the FIR. In
response, he explained that after the accident the driver of the
offending vehicle had attempted to settle the matter, however the
settlement could not materialize and therefore the complaint was
eventually lodged with the police, resulting in the delay. He also
denied the suggestion that the accident had occurred due to any
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 8 of 36
hurry or negligence on his part.
(f) In the facts of the present case, the delay in registration of
the FIR does not appear to be fatal to the case of the claimant.
The material on record clearly indicates that the injured was
immediately taken to AIIMS Trauma Centre by the PCR officials
after the accident and that the police authorities had already
received information regarding the accident on the very date of
occurrence through the PCR call recorded in GD Entry No. 75A.
Thus, the occurrence of the accident stood brought to the notice
of the police contemporaneously. The delay in formal registration
of the FIR appears to be procedural in nature, attributable to the
manner in which the complaint was processed by the police, and
does not cast any serious doubt on the genuineness of the
accident.
(g) It is also noteworthy that respondent no.1 and respondent
no.2 did not file any reply nor did they lead any evidence to rebut
the case of the claimant. Respondent no.1, being the driver of the
offending vehicle, was the best person to explain the manner in
which the accident occurred, yet he chose not to step into the
witness box to present his version. In such circumstances, an
adverse inference is liable to be drawn against respondent no.1.
(h) Further, there is nothing on record to show that respondent
no.1 had ever lodged any complaint or protest alleging false
implication of his vehicle in the present case. In the absence of
any rebuttal evidence from the respondents, there appears to be
no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the injured, which is
otherwise consistent with the medical record as well as the police
investigation.
(i) It is well settled that filing of a charge-sheet is a strong
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 9 of 36
corroborative circumstance pointing towards negligence.
Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle by
driver / R-1. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case of National
Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi as referred and
relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs.
Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C) No. 10351/2019) . It is also settled
that adverse inference can be drawn against the driver of the
offending vehicle in case he does not appear as a witness to
depose and clarify about his stance in respect of the accident.
(support drawn from the judgment in the case of Cholamandlam
insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
(j) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC
530 further referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew Alexander
vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
(k) In view of the above analysis of material on record
including evidence adduced on record, charge-sheet against R-1,
it is held that the accident was caused by speedy and reckless
driving on the part of driving of the offending vehicle. Issue No.1
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 10 of 36
is thus decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
9 Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes
a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
.
.
10 “….Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
battered.” {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited
Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes
that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone.
Something which remains as an indelible permanent sign of an
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 11 of 36
unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some
monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly
scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through
the entire process post accident and the unintended but
compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed
painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the
damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the
body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family
members also.
11. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small
attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the
hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring
some elbow space for him to move towards stability and
normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle
remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as
equivalent in money.
12. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to
assess ‘just’ compensation with the object of putting the sufferer
in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been
if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce
certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case
of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004
KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370-
5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in
mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation,
at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money
cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 12 of 36
shattered human physical frame with the observations as under:
“16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while
assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant
circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing
quantification of compensation. Further, they have to
approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger
perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and
eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be
realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the
possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of
all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are
extensions of this primary right, while awarding
compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be
treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages.
The amount of damages varies according to gravity of
injuries.”
13. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a
methodology known to law as social and legal security to a
victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual
ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is
understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss
is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset
with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore,
complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly
possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and
as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty
of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still
holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The
observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re
1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and
reproduced as under:
“……Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is
one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay
down any principle upon which you can give damages;
nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in
place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money
shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 13 of 36
familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure
pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest
that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what
is the exact amount of money which would represent such
a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has
undergone by reason of an accident……. But nevertheless
the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may
be given”
14. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra)
where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone
Vs. Rawyards Coal Company were referred as under:
“…….where any injury is to be compensated by damages,
in settling the sum of money to be given… you should as
nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put
the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he
would have been if he had not sustained the wrong….”
15. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of
Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
“41…..Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that
the measures of damages in all these cases ‘should be such
as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply
atoned for his misadventure’. The observation of Lord
Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt
a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a
fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to ‘hold up
his head among his neighbours and say with their approval
that he has done the fair thing’ is quite opposite to be kept
in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal
injury cases.”
16. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only
for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from
the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close
as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16
SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It
is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 14 of 36
Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of
the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support
drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
17. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated
for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those
natural 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 (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred
and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent
pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India
Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
18. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt an objective
assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or
whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in
reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be
inevitable. {support drawn from the case of Raj Kumar (supra) as
referred and relied in case of Sidram (supra)}.
19. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with
precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon
peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India elaborated upon the expression “which appears to
it to be just” in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v.
Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
20. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 15 of 36
Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights
into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination
of quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
“10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while
determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view
the sufferings of the injured person which would include his
inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and
his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have
earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of
the Tribunal or a court has to be broad- based. Needless to say, it
would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any
mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the
quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the
fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should be
inhered.”
21. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary
and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755. It is worthwhile to
reproduce certain observations made therein:
“9….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 are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to 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 and 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, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life.”
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 16 of 36
22. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal
injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further
discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
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 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.
7. 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
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 17 of 36
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. Decisions of this Court and the 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…”
23. Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(a) PW-1 (the injured) testified that at the time of the accident
he was working in a private job with M/s Paper Smiths, Okhla
Phase-I, and earning a salary of Rs.17,400/- per month. In
support of his employment, he proved on record his original
appointment letter issued by the said employer. The appointment
letter reflects that he had been appointed as a Field Executive in
the Okhla office in the year 2017 on a monthly salary of
Rs.14,500/-. The bank statement filed as Ex. PW1/7 for the
period 01.03.2019 to 31.08.2019 reflects two salary entries from
Paper Smiths in May 2019, namely Rs.10,000/- credited on
06.05.2019 and Rs.9,290/- credited on 13.05.2019. However,
apart from these two entries, no other consistent salary credits
from the said employer are reflected in the statement for the
relevant period.
(b) PW-1 further deposed that after the accident he joined
Albero Paper on 16.09.2019. The appointment letter of the said
employment has been placed on record, which reflects a salary of
Rs.20,000/- per month. The bank statement for the period from
22.09.2019 to 29.02.2020 also shows certain entries of
Rs.20,000/- credited as monthly salary from Albero. The injured
has also placed on record his educational documents as Ex.
PW1/4, including the Certificate of Senior Secondary
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 18 of 36
Examination (1998) and the graduation marksheet of 2001. The
marksheet indicates that he had not cleared certain subjects in BA
Part-I and Part-III. During cross-examination, PW-1 clarified that
his work involved sales and marketing activities and distribution
of newspapers. He further explained that a part of his salary for
March 2019 was paid in cash on 05.04.2019 and that certain
incentives had accrued and were credited on 06.05.2019.
Nevertheless, the salary entries in the bank statement for the
relevant period do not satisfactorily establish a regular monthly
income of Rs.17,400/- except for the two isolated entries
mentioned above. At the same time, it is pertinent to note that
shortly after the accident the injured secured employment in a
similar field with Albero Paper at a salary of Rs.20,000/- per
month, which reflects his earning capacity in that line of work.
(c) At the relevant time, the minimum wages for a matriculate
worker were Rs.16,962/- per month, whereas the injured has
claimed an income of Rs.17,400/- per month. Considering the
nature of his work, the available documentary evidence, the
minimum wages applicable at the relevant time, and his
subsequent employment showing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per
month, it would be reasonable to presume that his income fell
within this range. Accordingly, a rounded figure of Rs.17,000/-
per month is taken as the monthly income of the injured for the
purpose of computation of compensation.
(d) The injured had suffered fracture of both bones of the right
leg in the accident. As per the discharge summary, he was
discharged from the hospital on the same day. However, the
medical record shows that he remained under active medical
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 19 of 36
supervision for several months thereafter, as reflected from the
various medical documents and OPD visits placed on record. The
seriousness of the injury is further evident from the fact that the
injuries ultimately resulted in 21% permanent disability in
relation to the right lower limb. Thus, although the injured was
discharged on the same day, the nature of the fracture and the
subsequent treatment indicate that he must have required
considerable time for recovery and rehabilitation. It is also
evident from the record that the injured joined another company,
Albero Papers, only on 16.09.2019, i.e., after almost six months
from the date of the accident, which reasonably suggests that he
resumed employment only after attaining sufficient recovery to
perform his duties. During cross-examination, the injured also
deposed that he had been terminated from PaperSmiths, where he
was earlier employed. The oral testimony of the injured, when
read along with the medical documents on record and the
subsequent employment details, broadly corroborates the
circumstances following the accident. It can therefore be
reasonably inferred that the injured remained unable to earn for a
substantial period due to the injuries suffered in the accident.
Accordingly, loss of income for a period of six months appears to
be justified and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
(e) Accordingly, his loss of income is calculated to be
Rs.17,000/- x 6 = Rs.1,02,000/-
24. Loss of future earning
(a) It is part of record that petitioner has been opined with
21% permanent physical in relation to his right lower limb.
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 20 of 36
(b) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as
to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has
been delved into by Hon’ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
“8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability
refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a
person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result
of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from
motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Act”,
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)
of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose
of claiming compensation.”
(c) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 21 of 36
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(d). What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(e). Hon’ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 22 of 36
to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for
the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of
Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the
purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an
extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45%
permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of
a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot
be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If
there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent
of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140%
(that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have
suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof
expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to
the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of
loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The
Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of
permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity,
arising from a permanent disability will be different from the
percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly
assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the
extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms ofMACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 23 of 36
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]
and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and
decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire
body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the
person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite
of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities
and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 24 of 36
scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity
is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.”
(f) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar
& Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was
deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context
were made:
“In the context of loss of future earning, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of work being performed by the
person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and
once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or
loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take
the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work
himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the
puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 25 of 36
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or
the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road
insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of
a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the
loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg
(or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound
to have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or
social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working
in the office would not interfere with his work/earning
capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal
farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(g) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is
understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual
dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to
a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically
determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional
disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held
in various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and Hon’ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would
result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however,
might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each
other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(h) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the physical functional
disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body
disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also
assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical
functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and
proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the
earning capacity of injured was totally negated having beenMACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 26 of 36
rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held
that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders
the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal
vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why
compensation should be granted on the basis of physical
disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed
Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014
SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was
considered to be 65% by Hon’ble High Court in case of a
vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set
aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to
loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and
determined the functional disability at 85%. In another matter of
Arvind Kumar Mishra, injured suffered grievous injuries and
remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be
permanently disabled to the extent of 70% with his right hand
amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to be
90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India Insurance
Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon’ble Supereme
Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% functional
disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg
was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v
Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424, injured suffered loss of an
arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a
typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging the impact of
injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent
of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning
capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement
as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly, in the case of SidramMACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 27 of 36
(supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was
medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%,
however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning
capacity.
(i) As per the disability certificate placed on record, the injured
has suffered 21% permanent physical disability in relation to the
right lower limb. In the present case, the injured has deposed that
he was working as a Field Executive and was engaged in sales
and marketing activities including distribution of newspapers.
Such work primarily involves considerable physical movement,
travelling, standing and walking. Therefore, the efficiency of the
lower limbs becomes relevant for performing such duties. At the
same time, the disability is restricted only to the right lower limb
and not to the whole body. The injured is still capable of
performing work involving communication, coordination,
supervision and other activities associated with sales and
marketing. Thus, the disability cannot be treated as equivalent to
the percentage mentioned in the disability certificate for the
purpose of assessing loss of earning capacity. Considering the
nature of employment of the injured, the extent of disability in
the right lower limb, and the fact that his work requires
substantial mobility, it would be reasonable to assess the
functional disability affecting his earning capacity at 15%.
Accordingly, the functional disability of the injured for the
purpose of computation of loss of future earning capacity is taken
as 15%.
24(i) Future Prospect:
(a) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 28 of 36
the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company
Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only
in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The
observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are
reproduced hereunder:
“6. The principle consistently followed by this court in
assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the
victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the
accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of
amenities and other payments. These general principles have
been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases
of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor
accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for
future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v.
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to
the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India)
(P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam’s Institute of Medical
Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma
Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these
principles by stating that the courts should, “in determining the
quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident,
who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the
victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts
should always be made to award adequate compensation not
only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss
of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability
caused due to the accident.” These decisions were also
followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay
Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two,
the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court
no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi
involved assessment of compensation in a case where the
victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the
three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but
rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent
that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was
binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no
justification for the High Court to have read the previous
rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation
for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of
Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 29 of 36
possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases – and admits such possibility of future
prospects, in case of the victim’s death.
(b) Hon’ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases
involving permanent disability and observed as under:
“20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic
approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the
realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of
disabilities, and compensation under various heads.
.
.
What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is
the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity
of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity
on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession,
vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind
arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview of
the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent
that the income generating capacity of the appellant was
undoubtedly severely affected”.
(c) Aadhar Card (Ex.PW1/3 colly) shows his year of birth as
1982, as such, his age as on the date of accident was about 37
years. Since the injured was below the age of 40 years (at the
time of accident) and purportedly earning fixed income thus as
mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and other case laws,
the percentage towards future prospect is taken to be @ 40 %.
Further, as tabulated in the case of Sarla Verma (supra),
multiplier of 15 is applicable.
(d) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(i) Annual income (Rs.17,000/- x12) = Rs.2,04,000/-
(ii) Future prospect (40% of Rs.2,04,000/-) = Rs. 81,600/-
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 30 of 36
__________________
(iii) Total = Rs.2,85,600/-
(iv) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.2,85,600/-
(v) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
(vi) Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
15% (Rs.2,85,600/- x 15) = Rs.6,42,600/-
25. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
Pecuniary loss : - Quantum Sl. no. 1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : The claimant has Rs.15,000/-
placed on record medical bills along with the
treatment summary for a total sum of
Rs.14,308/-. All the medical bills appear to be
original in nature and have not been disputed by
the respondents. There is nothing on record to
doubt their genuineness. Considering the nature
of injuries and the treatment undergone by the
claimant, it is also reasonable to presume that
certain incidental and miscellaneous expenses
would have been incurred during the course of
treatment which may not necessarily be
supported by documentary proof. Accordingly,
a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded
to the claimant towards medical expenses.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No Rs. 20,000/-
documentary proof has been filed by the
claimant regarding expenditure on conveyance.
However, considering the medical condition of
the injured, the fractures sustained by him and
the repeated visits to the hospital for treatment
and follow-up, which would necessarily have
required assistance of support persons including
family members, it can be reasonably inferred
that the claimant must have incurred substantial
expenditure on conveyance. Accordingly, a sum
of Rs. 20,000/- is awarded to the claimant under
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 31 of 36
the head of conveyance charges.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There is no Rs.20,000/-
prescription for special diet. The nature of
injuries sustained by the injured suggest that he
must have been advised and would have
required to consume healthy wholesome protein
rich diet for efficient and prompt recovery.
By guess work, compensation can be awarded
for special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Claimant Rs.15,000/-
himself deposed that he had spent Rs.15,000/-
on attendant; considering the nature of injuries
and need of support person during recovery
period, this amount looks reasonable. An
amount of Rs.15,000/- is thus awarded to
claimant towards nursing / attendant.
(v) Loss of income : As discussed above: Rs.1,02,000/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and physical shock Rs.1,00,000/-
as well as pain and suffering : Considering the
injuries sustained by injured and discussed (Rs.50,000/- +
earlier it is considered that he must have Rs.50,000/-)
suffered immense physical, mental and
emotional trauma for what he was compelled to
undergo on account of injuries sustained in the
accident. There is no measure with the court to
quantify the pain and suffering of the injured,
however, an attempt is being made to
compensate in terms of money for the agony
she must have suffered. Therefore, an amount
of 1,00,000/- (Rs.50,000/-+ Rs.50,000/-) is
awarded to the injured against (i) pain, suffering
as well as (ii) mental trauma sustained in the
accident.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : It compensates Rs.20,000/-
the victim on account of his inability to enjoy
the basic amenities of life as any other normal
person can, taking into account the age and the
deprivation he would have to undergo and
suffer due to injuries. Considering the nature of
injuries suffered by claimant, an amount of Rs.
20,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
(iv) Loss of future Income: As discussed Rs.6,42,600/-
above:
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 32 of 36
3 Total Compensation Rs.9,34,600/-
4 Deduction, if any, Nil
5 Total Compensation after deduction Rs.9,34,600/-
6 Interest As directed below
26. Interest :
(a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend
upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable
guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is
deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram MAC APP
526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC APP 70/2024 of the Hon’bleDelhi High Court).
27. LIABILITY
(a) The issue of rash and negligent driving has already been
discussed and decided hereinabove, wherein it has been held that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The Insurance Company
has admitted the validity and genuineness of the insurance policy
in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of accident and
also proposed legal offer. No statutory defence under the Motor
Vehicles Act has been pleaded or proved by the Insurance
Company. In view of the above facts, and in the absence of any
statutory defence, the Insurance Company is under a legal
obligation to indemnify the insured/owner for the vicarious
liability arising out of the tortious act of respondent no.1.
Accordingly, the principal award amount/compensation shall be
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 33 of 36
payable by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle,
along with simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the DAR till its actual realization. (If there is any order
regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be
complied at the time of calculation of award amount. Further, in
case the matter adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the
date of concerned order till revival of the case, shall not be
awarded. Further, if any auction proceeds is received, same be
adjusted in the final award amount).
28. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to
furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case
number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station,
name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other
relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the
account titled “MACT FUND PARKING”, Account No.
00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code
110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
29. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Out of total award amount Rs.5,00,000/- is kept in form of
monthly FDR of Rs.10,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be
released in bank account of injured.
30. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon’ble
High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated
14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank
account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 34 of 36
all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to
receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of
cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven
days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They
are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not
already filed.
31. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further
directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the
claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper
verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the
bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for
release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount,
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
32. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE
AWARD.
1 Date of accident 15.03.2019
2 Name of injured Sanjay Kumar
3 Age of the injured 37 years
4 Occupation of the injured Sales and Marketing
5 Income of the injured Rs.17,000/-
6 Nature injury Grievous injury + disability
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization As per record.
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury+ disability
disability?
MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 35 of 36
33. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and
concerned criminal court. Digitally
signed by
ADITI
(Pronounced in the ADITI GARG
open court on 10.03.2026) GARG Date:
2026.03.10
(Aditi Garg)16:28:31
+0530
PO-MACT-01 (South-East)
Saket Court/ New Delhi
10.03.2026MACT No. 850/2025 Sanjay Kumar Vs. Manish & Ors. Page No. 36 of 36
[ad_1]
Source link
