Delhi District Court
Danish (I) (Fir 108/2025/Subzi Mandi) vs Munna Bhai (The Oriental Insurance) on 9 April, 2026
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER MACT-02:
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
PRESIDED OVER BY Ms. POOJA AGGARWAL, DHJS
MACT No. 530/2025
UID/CNR No. DLCT-01-009391-2025
In Respect of
FIR No. 108/25
PS Subzi Mandi
U/s: 281/125(b) BNS
Mohammad Danish
S/o Sh. Babu Khan
R/o H. No. 1352, Gali No. 45,
Jafrabad, Delhi-110053
(Through Ld. Counsel Ms. Babita Tyagi)
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Munna Bhai (Driver)
S/o Mr. Ibhrahim Khan
R/o Gali No.6, Sanjay Nagar,
Udiya Basti, Kota Ladpura, Rajasthan.
2. Dharam Raj (Owner)
S/o Mr. Rameshwar
R/o Vill Lalganj, PO-Indamau,
Distt. Unnao, UP.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Office at:- 60, Janpath Road, Atul Grove Road,
Janpath, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
Also at:- A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
Oriental House, Delhi-110002.
(Through Ld. Counsel Mr. Vinay Chaudhary)
.....Respondents
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 1 of 40
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:52:14 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
Date of filing of DAR : 01.07.2025
Judgment reserved on : 09.04.2026
Date of Award : 09.04.2026
AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
"DAR") has been filed by the Investigating Officer in respect of
FIR No. 108/2025, PS Subzi Mandi, u/s 281/125(b) BNS
regarding injuries sustained by Mohammad Danish S/o Mr.
Babu Khan (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner/ injured") due
to an accident, which took place on 10.01.2025, at about 10.30
P.M., near shop no. 13, Gokhale market, behind Tis Hazari
Court Gate No. 06, Mori Gate Gol Chakkar, Delhi, by the
vehicle bearing registration no. BR-29PB-0526 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Offending Vehicle') being driven by Munna Bhai
(hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1") rashly and
negligently, owned by Dharam Raj (hereinafter referred to as
"Respondent No.2") and insured with The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited (hereinafter referred to Respondent No.3/
Insurance Company).
2. A copy of the chargesheet in respect of the commission of
offences under Section 281/125(b) BNS filed against the
Respondent No. 1 after investigation in respect of the said FIR,
was also annexed with the DAR.
3. Vide order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Predecessor, the
DAR was directed to be treated as a claim petition under Section
MACT No. 530/25
Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 2 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
14:52:26
DOD: 09.04.2026
+0530
166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "MV
Act").
Facts as per Reply/Written Statement filed by Respondents No.
1 &2
4. In their joint reply/written statement, the Respondents No. 1 and
2 raised various preliminary objections and stated that the
alleged accident had occurred solely due to carelessness and
negligence on the part of the Petitioner himself, who was not
aware of the traffic rules and regulations as he had jumped red
light, got disbalanced on his own and hit the vehicle of the
Respondents. It has also been stated that the FIR had been
registered only to take the benefit of compensation. It has also
been asserted that the offending vehicle was insured with
Respondent No. 3 at the time of the alleged accident and that the
accident and it has been denied that the Respondent No. 1 was
driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or caused the
accident of the Petitioner.
Facts as per reply of Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company.
5. In its reply, the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company inter alia
stated that as per the medical record, dated 11.01.2025 of Atal
Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Science and Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital, the injured/ petitioner was brought to
the hospital due to A/H/O fall from bike whereas in FIR dated
28.02.2025, it has been stated by the injured petitioner/that he
got injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus.
The Respondent No. 3 admitted having issued the insurance
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
Page No. 3 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:52:52 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
policy for the offending vehicle No. BR-29PB-0526 for the
period w.e.f. 31.01.2024 to 30.01.2025 in favour of the
Respondent No. 2 Dharam Raj.
Issues
6. On the basis of the pleadings on record, the following issues
were framed vide order dated 18.11.2025:-
1. Whether the petitioner Danish suffered injuries in
an accident that took place on 10.01.2025 at about
10.30 p.m., involving vehicle bearing registration
No. BR-29PB-0526 driven by the Respondent No.
1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent
no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
3. Relief.
Evidence of the Petitioner
7. PW-1 Mohd. Danish, being the Petitioner/injured himself,
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW-1/A,
wherein, inter-alia, he testified that he was working with Vishwa
Karma Travels Office and on 10.01.2025, at about 10.30 p.m.,
he was standing on the footpath (patri) of Vishwa Karma Travels
Office, Shop No. 13, Gokhale Market, Behind Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi-110054, when the driver of the offending vehicle
bearing registration No. BR-29PB-0526, “negligently and
carelessly and without apply safety measures, while driving the
offending vehicle reverse side and hit back portion of the bus
over the patri where the deponent was standing and two right
foot figures (sic) (3&4) came under the said offending vehicle
and completely cut at the spot”.
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Page No. 4 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:03
+0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
8. The Petitioner/PW1 has further testified that he was taken to
RML Hospital, New Delhi where the employer as well as of the
driver of the offending vehicle assured that they will bear all
expenses on his medical treatment and will also compensate
him, due to which the Petitioner did not lodge any complaint
with the Police Station and no MLC was prepared, however,
when despite passage of time, the employer and driver of the
vehicle did not fulfill the promises, he took treatment from
Hindu Rao Hospital, New Delhi, where his MLC No.
1770/2025, dated 28.02.2025 was prepared. The Petitioner
further testified that he had sustained grievous injuries i.e. his
right foot two fingers (3 & 4) were cut at the spot and he also
received injuries on his body. He further testified that he had
also taken treatment from Ganga Ram Hospital. He also testified
that an FIR No. 108/25, dated 28.02.2025 under Section
281/125(b) BNS, PS Subzi Mandi had also been registered
against the Respondents.
9. The Petitioner/PW-1 has further testified that he was aged about
34 years at the time of the accident and was working with
Vishwa Karma Travels Office earning a sum of ₹25,000/- per
month. He also testified as to having incurred an expenditure of
₹60,000/- on medical treatment, a sum of ₹40,000/- on
conveyance, a sum of ₹40,000/- on special diet and a sum of
₹45,000/- towards attendant charges. He also relied upon the
following documents:-
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 5 of 40
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:11 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. DAR Ex. PW-1/1 (Colly)
2. Copy of discharge summary Ex. PW-1/2
(De-exhibited being
unavailable on
record).
3. Treatment papers Ex.PW-1/3(Colly)
4. Medical bills Ex.PW-1/4(Colly)
5. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/5
6. Disability Certificate Ex.PW-1/6
7. Copy of educational paper Ex.PW-1/7
10. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Respondent No.
3/ Insurance Company only.
Evidence of the Respondents
11.Only the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company led its
evidence and examined two witnesses.
12. R3W-1/Dr. Vinod Kumar Meena, from RML Hospital, being a
summoned witness produced the following summoned record:
S.No. Description of Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. His authority letter Ex.R3W-1/1
2. Causality Card dated Ex.R3W-1/2
10.01.2025 (already Ex.
PW-1/3 (Colly)
3. Plastic Surgery Reference Ex.R3W-1/3
Card, dated 11.01.2025
4. General Surgery Card Ex.R3W-1/4
Reference Sheet
5. OPD Card, dated Ex.R3W-1/5
14.01.2025MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 6 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:15 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
13. He also testified that “the patient had told Dr. Amisha Singh
that the accident had occurred at 11.30 p.m. on 10.01.2025 and
fall from bike” and he was duly cross-examined on behalf of the
Petitioner.
14. R3W-2 Munna i.e. the Respondent No. 1 himself was also
examined by the Respondent No. 3 as a summoned witness. He
testified that his bus used to leave at 10.00 P.M. daily from his
Office i.e. Shop No. C-13/14, Mori Gate, in front of Tis Hazari
Court Gate No. 6 and on 10.01.2025, his bus had left at the same
time. He further testified that he had come to know about the
accident after two months when police came to his office and
inquired from his owner. He further testified to the effect that no
accident had been caused by him. He was duly cross-examined
on behalf of the Petitioner wherein inter alia he testified that he
had never filed any complaint or application to any higher
authority regarding his false implication in the accident and also
testified that he was appearing on every date before the criminal
court. He further testified that he did not tell before the Police or
the criminal court that no accident had been caused by him on
10.01.2025.
Final Arguments and Issue Wise Findings
15. Final arguments were advanced only on behalf of the Petitioner
as well as on behalf of Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company
by their respective Counsels as none appeared on behalf of the
Respondent No. 1 and 2 to advance the same. The arguments as
advanced have been carefully considered along with the
Digitally signedMACT No. 530/25 POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 14:53:19 +0530
Page No. 7 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
evidence on record, and after careful consideration of the same,
the issue wise findings are as under:
Issue No.1: Whether the petitioner Danish suffered
injuries in an accident that took place on 10.01.2025 at
about 10.30 p.m., involving vehicle bearing registration
No. BR-29PB-0526 driven by the Respondent No. 1
rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent no. 2
and insured with the respondent no. 3? OPP.
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the Petitioner. It is a
settled proposition of law that in this Tribunal strict proof of an
accident having been caused in a particular manner may not be
possible to be done by the Petitioners, and they are to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
applied. Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and
others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,
(2009) 13 SC 530, Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Geeta Dubey Vs United India
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, 2024 SCC Online SC 3779,
Sajeena Ikhbal and Others Vs Mini Babu George and Others,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883.
17. In Prabhavathi v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn.,
2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
again reiterated that:
“13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is
established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence
used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of proof isMACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi Page No. 8 of 40
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:23 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in Sunita v.
Rajasthan SRTC1 observed that:
“22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases,
once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of
the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role
would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if
the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the
driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal
would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties.
Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle
accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be
of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard
of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases.”
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd.2, wherein it was observed that:
“20. It is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing
with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the
accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be
to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court
in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata(Supra), strict rules of
evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable
in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say, “the
standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases”.
(Emphasis supplied)
18. In respect of the factum and manner of the accident, it is noted
that as per the testimony of the Petitioner/PW1, the accident
occurred on 10.01.2025, at about 10.30 p.m., when the back
portion of the bus/offending vehicle bearing No. BR-29PB-0526
had hit the Petitioner resulting in the toes of right foot (3&4)
coming under the offending vehicle and being completely cut at
the spot. The testimony of PW1 is also categorical in respect of
the accident having been caused as the offending vehicle was
being driven by its driver/ Respondent No. 1 negligently and
1(2020) 13 SCC 486
2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1699
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
Page No. 9 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:28 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
carelessly. Nothing material could be elicited from the Petitioner
during his cross-examination to discredit his testimony in
respect of either the factum or even the manner of the accident.
19. On the other hand, as R3W2, the Respondent No. 1/Driver
Munna testified that on 10.01.2025, no accident had been
caused by him and that his bus had left at 10.00 p.m. from his
office on that day. However, except his self serving oral
testimony as to the bus/offending vehicle having already left
from the place of accident at 10.00 p.m. i.e. prior to the time of
accident, the Respondents did not bring on record any further
evidence in the form of documents/ logs/ register to corroborate
the said self serving oral testimony, which cannot be relied upon
as it is contrary to the defence set up in the reply/written
statement of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e. as to the accident
having occurred due to carelessness and negligence on the part
of the Petitioner himself, who was not aware of the traffic rules
and regulations as he had jumped red light, got disbalanced on
his own and hit the vehicle of the Respondents.
20. No other evidence has been brought on record by the
Respondents to disbelieve the oral testimony of the petitioner
which is also consistent with his earlier statement, on the basis
of which the FIR was registered, whereas the Respondents have
failed to lead sufficient evidence to render their defence more
probable than that of the Petitioner.
21. The act of driving a vehicle in such a manner that it results in
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA
Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
14:53:32 +0530
Page No. 10 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
the vehicle causing injuries to any person, is itself indicative of
existence of rashness and negligence by the driver of the
offending vehicle, even more so when no evidence has been led
as to the Petitioner having contributed in causing the accident in
any manner.
22. It is further noted that the Respondent No. 1 has been charge-
sheeted by the investigating agency for the commission of
offences punishable under Sections 281/125(b) BNS in the FIR
No. 108/25, PS Subzi Mandi in respect of accident in question,
after concluding its investigation on the aspect of factum and
cause of the accident as well as the identity of the offender.
23. The Respondent No. 1/ Driver has admitted during his cross
examination that he is appearing before the criminal court on
every date, yet he did not tell before the Police or the criminal
court that no accident had been caused by him on 10.01.2025.
The Respondent No. 1/ driver has also admitted in his cross-
examination that he has never filed any complaint or application
to any higher authority regarding his false implication in the
accident, yet he did not furnish any explanation for not having
taken any steps in respect of his purported false implication.
Thus, the filing of the chargesheet against the Respondent No.
1/Driver also indicates existence of rash and negligent driving of
the offending vehicle by him.
24. Strength for this interpretation is also drawn from the judgment
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:53:36 +0530 Page No. 11 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors,
2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del) wherein the Coordinate Bench of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, held as under:-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of the
criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of
investigation by police or issuance of charge sheet under Section
279/304A IPC or the certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the
mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these
documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion that the
driver was negligent particularly when there is no defence available
from the side of driver.”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. It has already been noted that the Petitioner cannot be expected
to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts, and the
principle of res ipsa loquitor i.e. “accident speaks for itself” is
applicable, it would imply that once it has been established in
DAR and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the
burden shifts on the Respondents to prove that they were not
responsible for the accident which the Respondents have failed
to discharge in this case.
26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid reasons and discussion, on the
basis of the evidence as led including the chargesheet, as well as
oral testimony of PW-1/ Danish who is an eye-witness of the
accident being the injured himself, and in the absence of any
evidence depicting any negligent/ sudden act or omission on the
part of injured having been brought on record, it is held that on
the scale of preponderance of probability, the Petitioner has
discharged his burden and has proved that the accident took
place on 10.01.2025 at about 10.30 PM involving Bus bearing
registration No. BR-29PB-0526 driven by the Respondent No. 1
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:53:40 +0530
Page No. 12 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
rashly and negligently, owned by the Respondent No. 2 and
insured with the Respondent No. 3.
Injury
27. In respect of the injury sustained by the Petitioner in the
accident, it is noted that as per the testimony of PW1/ Petitioner,
he had sustained injuries on his right foot and two toes of his
right foot were completely cut after having come under the
offending vehicle.
28. The document Ex. R3W1/2, which is an OPD registration card
of RML Hospital, dated 10.01.2025, reflects the alleged history
of RTA and also reflects injury i.e. laceration (4 x 3 x 1cm) over
the dorsum of right foot, while Ex. R3W1/3, dated 11.01.2025
(3.00 a.m.) reflects lacerated wound over the right foot i.e. over
dorsum (6 x 2 x 1cm) over 2-4 digit, over base of 2-4 digits (7 x
4 x 2 cm), MTPJ restricted movements=2-5th, CRT absent in
3/4th toes, complete degloving injury of 3/4 toes.
29. Further, treatment documents i.e. Ex. R3W1/4 as well as Ex.
R3W1/5 also reflect injuries on the foot of the Petitioner, while
the treatment documents i.e. page No. 2 of Ex. PW1/3, reflects
that amputation was also done at RML Hospital itself.
30. The said medical documents have not been controverted by the
Respondents in any manner nor any reason has been brought on
record to disbelieve either the aforesaid medical treatment
papers or even the disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 13 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:46 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
Ali, Government Hospital, which reflects that the Petitioner was
a case of amputation of 3rd-4th toe (right) and he has 11%
permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower
limb, which, on the scale of preponderance of probabilities,
sufficiently proves that the grievous injuries was sustained by
the Petitioner due to the accident, which also led to permanent
disability.
31. During the course of final arguments, it has been vehemently
argued on behalf of the Respondent No.3/ Insurance Company
that there was a delay in the registration of FIR as the accident
had purportedly occurred on 10.01.2025 but the FIR was
registered only on 28.02.2025, which proved that the offending
vehicle was falsely implicated. It has also been argued that in
the medical documents produced by R3W1, the alleged history
is recorded as fall from bike and not road traffic accident, which
further proved that falsity of the case.
32. In respect of these arguments, it is noted that it is a matter of
record that the FIR in the present case has been registered only
on 28.02.2025, whereas the accident took place on 10.01.2025.
However, PW-1/ Danish has categorical testified that his
employer as well as the driver of the offending vehicle had
assured him that they will bear all the expenses of his treatment
and will also compensate him and it was for this reason that he
did not lodge any complaint with the police station immediately.
The Petitioner was not cross examined by the Respondent No. 3
in respect of such assurances nor the Respondent No. 2 or even
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 14 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:53:52 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
the Respondent No. 1 controverted such testimony through any
cross-examination, or even during the testimony of Respondent
No.1. It is not lost sight of that the Petitioner was an employee
of the Respondent No. 2 itself and hence, it is not difficult to
believe that he had restrained from filing any police complaint
against the driver of his own employer/ employer himself on the
basis of such assurance of the employer/driver.
33. That being so, the delay in the registration of FIR has been
sufficiently explained and the mere fact that the FIR was
registered belatedly does not have disprove the factum of the
accident having occurred on 10.01.2025.
34. In respect of the second arguments of the Respondent No. 3/
Insurance Company, it is duly noted that the very first treatment
record of the Petitioner as available on record is the document
Ex. R3W1/2, which is an OPD registration card of RML
Hospital, dated 10.01.2025, does reflect the alleged history of
RTA at Mori Gate, Delhi and also reflects injury on the right
foot, which thus corroborates the testimony of the Petitioner
having sustained injury in a road traffic accident on 10.01.2025.
35. The fact that the subsequent treatment documents i.e. Ex.
R3W1/3 and Ex. R3W1/4, reflect the alleged history of fall from
bike does not discredit the earlier document i.e. Ex.R3W1/2,
which was prepared prior in time and immediately after the
accident. It is further noted that even in the subsequent
document i.e. Ex. R3W1/5, dated 14.01.2025, the alleged
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed by
POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:53:56 +0530
Page No. 15 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
history is again recorded as RTA. In these circumstances, the
mere mention of history of fall from bike in Ex. R3W1/3 and
Ex. R3W1/4 is not sufficient to render the factum of the
Petitioner having been injured in the accident itself.
36. Consequently, the arguments raised by the Respondent No.3/
Insurance Company are rejected being devoid of merit, and
issue no.1 is, decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the
Respondents.
Issue no 2.Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom; and
Issue no. 3.Relief.
37. Since the Petitioner sustained grievous injuries as a result of the
accident in question, he is entitled to be compensated for the
same and Section 168 of the MV Act enjoins upon this Tribunal
to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining
the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable.
Quantum of compensation
38. The guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” has been enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in Anjali v. Lokendra Rathod, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1683, wherein it has been observed that: –
“The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “MV
Act“) gives paramount importance to the concept of ‘just and fair’
compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed
with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families.
Section 168 of the MV Act deals with the concept of ‘just
compensation’ which ought to be determined on the foundation of
fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signedIn Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi Page No. 16 of 40
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:54:01 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the applicant/s.
In Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121,
this Court has laid down as under:
16.”Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is fair
and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to
make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as
money can do so, by applying the well settled principles
relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.”
(Emphasis supplied)
39. It is a settled proposition of law that in cases where the
Petitioner has suffered injuries due to the accident, the grant of
compensation is under two broad categories, i.e. Pecuniary as
well as non-pecuniary damages. The two categories of damages
has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551,
which has also been reiterated in Atul Tiwari v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 6 as under:
“9. 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
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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
MACT No. 530/25
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA
Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
Page No. 17 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:54:09 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
40. The principles guiding such grant of compensation have been
reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay
Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, as under:
“General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’ for short)
makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately
restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object
of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result
of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the
nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is
not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that
he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his
inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have
enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he
used to earn or could have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs.
T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby
– 1970 AC 467).
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 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.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 2026.04.09
14:54:14 +0530 Page No. 18 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
41. Further in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, it has
been held that:
“It is impossible to equate human suffering and personal deprivation
with money. However, this is what the Act enjoins upon the courts to
do. The court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages, so
as to compensate the claimant for the loss suffered by the victim. On
the one hand, the compensation should not be assessed very
conservatively, but on the other hand, compensation should also not
be assessed in so liberal a fashion so as to make it a bounty to the
claimant. The court while assessing the compensation should have
regard to the degree of deprivation and the loss caused by such
deprivation. Such compensation is what is termed as just
compensation. The compensation or damages assessed for personal
injuries should be substantial to compensate the injured for the
deprivation suffered by the injured throughout his/her life. They
should not be just token damages.”
(Emphasis supplied)
42. In view of the above legal propositions, the amount of
compensation shall be computed in this case.
A: Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
43. In respect of his treatment/ medicine and hospitalization, the
Petitioner has relied upon his treatment bills i.e. Ex
PW-1/4(Colly), as per which he has incurred an expense of
₹12,555/-. For reasons best known to them, the Respondents
could not controvert the aforesaid bills either through cross
examination or through any other evidence. In the absence of
the same, no reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the
said bills issued in the name of the Petitioner, and thus, the
Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹12,555/-) towards treatment
bills.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 2026.04.09 Page No. 19 of 40
14:54:18 +0530
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
44. In respect of expenses towards nourishing food and
conveyance, the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW-1/A that he
had incurred an expense of about ₹40,000/- on special diet, and
a sum of ₹40,000/- on conveyance, but he led no further
evidence to prove the same. Be that as it may, though he has not
brought on record any document to substantiate his claim of the
expenses, but at the same time, it is not overlooked that in view
of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner resulting in 11%
disability in relation to his right lower limb, he would have
taken some time for recovery and incurred extra expenditure on
his food and conveyance. That being so, a sum of ₹15,000/-
each is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of special diet
as well as conveyance.
45. In respect of the misc expenses, PW1/Petitioner has testified as
to having incurred an expense of ₹45,000/- towards charges
paid to the attendant, but he led no further evidence to prove the
same as he neither examined any such attendant nor proved any
such payment towards the same. Be that as it may, it can also
not be overlooked that in view that the injuries sustained by the
Petitioner in the accident, he is likely to have incurred misc
expenses including expense towards attendant. That being so, a
sum of ₹15,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner under the head of
Misc Expenses (Attendant Charges).
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
MACT No. 530/25
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Page No. 20 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:54:23 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
46. In respect of loss of earning during the period of treatment , it is
noted that as per the medical documents on record i.e. Ex
PW-1/3 (colly) as well as Ex. R3W1/2 to Ex. R3W1/5, the
Petitioner remained under treatment since 10.01.2025 till
20.03.2025. In view of the nature of his injuries which resulted
in amputation, the Petitioner is bound to have suffered loss of
income for the period he remained under treatment. Hence, he is
entitled to be compensated for the loss of his income for the
aforementioned period of about 02 months.
47. To compute the loss of income of the Petitioner, the quantum of
his monthly income needs to be ascertained. It is noted that as
PW1, the Petitioner has testified in Ex PW-1/A that he was
working with Vishwa Karma Travels Office and earning about
₹25,000/- per month. However, the Petitioner did not bring on
record any document to corroborate his self serving testimony
nor he examined his employer, to prove his income. However,
he has placed on record his educational documents Ex. PW1/7
i.e. his certificate of Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation
in respect of Secondary School Examination (Session 2009-
2011), as per which he has passed Class 10 th. In the absence of
sufficient evidence having been brought on record by the
Petitioner in respect of him working in private sector or as to
him earning ₹25,000/- per month therefrom, his income shall be
assessed on the basis of the Minimum Wages payable to a
Matriculate Person in Delhi at the time of the accident i.e. on
10.01.2025 i.e. ₹21,917/- per month and consequently, his loss
of income is computed to be ₹43,834/- (₹21,917 x 2). Hence,
Digitally signed
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
14:54:29 +0530
Page No. 21 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
DOD: 09.04.2026
the Petitioner is awarded a sum of ₹43,834/- towards loss of
income due to treatment.
48. In respect of the loss of future earnings, the Petitioner has
testified in Ex PW-1/A that due to the permanent disability
sustained due to the accident, he is unable to move frequently.
His disability certificate issued by Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital dated
09.10.2025, is already on record, as per which he has 11%
permanent physical impairment in relation to his right lower
limb and it can be duly looked into, as no reason has been
brought on record to believe that there is any suspicion on the
document, and even the Respondent have not disputed the same.
Strength for this interpretation is drawn from the order dated
16.11.2021, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, in W.P.
(Civil) No. 534/2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that:
“(iv) As far as the aspect of the issuance of certificate on disability
of victims is concerned, it is reiterated that the guidelines laid down
by this Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC
343 mandatorily must be followed by the MACTs, in respect of loss
of income due to injury/disablement. The District Medical Board is
also directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of
Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India vide Gazette
Notification S. No. 61, dated 05.01.2018, for issuance of disability
Certificate in order to bring Pan India uniformity. The consequence
is that the MACT would ascertain that permanent disability
certificate issued by the District Medical Board or body authorized
by it is in accordance with the Gazette Notification alone. Once the
certificate is issued in this manner, the same can be marked for
purposes of being taken into consideration as evidence without the
necessity of summoning the concerned witness to give formal proof
of the documents unless there is some reason for suspicion on the
document.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Digitally
MACT No. 530/25 signed by
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 22 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:55:42
DOD: 09.04.2026 +0530
49. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has noted that:
“Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability
refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a
person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a
result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise
from motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995(`Disabilities Act’ for
short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of
the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor
accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of
claiming compensation.
(Emphasis supplied)
50. It is has been further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 34 that:
“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 40% of all his four limbs, it is not the same as 40%
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
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date:
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi 2026.04.09
14:55:48 Page No. 23 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors.
+0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
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, 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 permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the percentage
of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will
adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation (see
for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra
v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. – 2010(10) SCALE 298 and
Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010 (8)
SCALE 567).
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
Digitally signed
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 24 of 40
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:55:52 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
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 ability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the
activities and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii)
whether he was prevented or restricted from discharging his
previous activities and functions, but could carry on some other
or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he continues to
earn or can continue to earn his livelihood.”
(Emphasis supplied)
51. In the present case, the 11% permanent physical impairment
reflected in the disability certificate is in relation to the right
lower limb, and not with reference to the whole body, and the
Petitioner has failed to bring on record any specific evidence to
prove the functional disability sustained by him. In these
circumstances, keeping in view the nature of the injuries
sustained by the Petitioner, his functional disability is taken to
half of 11% i.e. 5.5% in relation to the whole body.
52. In respect of the quantum of loss of future income on account of
permanent disability, the age of the Petitioner needs to be
ascertained. It is duly noted that the date of birth of the
Petitioner is reflected as 31.07.1991 in his Aadhaar Card
tendered as Ex.PW-1/5 where as on his educational certificate
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 25 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:55:57 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
Ex.PW-1/7, his date of birth is reflected as 08.07.1992. The date
of birth as reflected in the educational certificate is more likely
to be based on verified record submitted at the time of
enrollment in the School whereas the Aadhaar Card cannot be
considered as a valid proof of date of birth, in cases where there
is a discrepancy in the dates reflected in the educational
documents as well as in the Aadhaar Card. Thus, the date of
birth of Petitioner shall be considered as per his educational
certificate Ex.PW-1/7 and thus his age as on the date of accident
comes to be 32 years which shall be considered for the purpose
of computation.
53. His notional income has already been assessed to be ₹21,917/-
per month on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a
Matriculate Person at the time of the accident i.e. on 10.01.2025.
In view of the proposition laid down in Erudhaya Priya v. State
Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601
(citing Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571), the Petitioner is
also entitled to the grant of future prospects. Thus, in view of
the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% of the established income is to
be added to the monthly income towards future prospects, if the
injured is aged less than 40 years. That being so, an amount of
₹8,766.8./- shall be added to the notional monthly income, and
thus the monthly income inclusive of the future prospects comes
to be ₹30,683.8/- and the annual income comes to be
₹3,68,205.6/-.
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date: 2026.04.09
Page No. 26 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:02 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
54. Further, as the Petitioner was aged about 32 years at the time of
the accident, a multiplier of 16 shall be applicable (Ref: Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6
SCC 121) and therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner/
injured comes to be ₹58,91,289.6/- (₹3,68,205.6/- x 16).
55. As the functional disability of the Petitioner has been taken to
5.5%, the loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability caused to the Petitioner arising out of the accident
comes to be ₹3,24,021/- (rounded off from ₹3,24,020.928/-)
(i.e.5.5% of the notional income) and the Petitioner/injured is
awarded the same.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
56. The Petitioner has not led any evidence as to any foreseeable
medical expenses arising in the future due to the injury
sustained by him in the accident. Hence, no amount is awarded
to him under this head.
B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
57. In respect of the damages under this head, it is noted that the
factum of the petitioner/injured having sustained grievous
injuries with 11% permanent disability in his right lower limb
already stands proved. Further, as per the treatment documents
placed on record by the Petitioner, he remained under treatment
since 10.01.2025 to 20.03.2025. Due to the nature of injuries
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Page No. 27 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:06
+0530DOD: 09.04.2026
and considering the age of the Petitioner/injured at the time of
the accident, it can safely be inferred that he must have suffered
pain and trauma due to the accident. Accordingly, a lump sum
amount of ₹35,000/- is granted in favour of the Petitioner
towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage,
disfiguration).
58. In the present case, as the Petitioner has sustained grievous
injury in the accident resulting in 11% disability in relation to
his right lower limb, it cannot be ignored that he faces a
possibility of denial of enjoyment of the simple pleasures of life
and companionship as well as enjoyment of life. That being so,
a sum of ₹25,000/- is awarded to the Petitioner/ injured towards
loss of amenities.
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
59. No evidence has been brought on record by the Petitioner to
show as to whether there is any loss of expectation of life due to
the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident. That
being so, no amount is awarded to the Petitioner under this head.
60. For the sake of convenience, the amount as awarded to the
Petitioner is summarized as under:-
S. No. HEAD AMOUNT
1. Treatment / medicine expenses ₹12,555/-
2. Hospitalization expenses
3. Special Diet ₹15,000/-
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 28 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:56:10 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
4. Misc expenses/Attendant ₹15,000/-
charges
5. Transport/conveyance ₹15,000/-
6. Loss of earning during ₹43,834/-
hospitalization
7. Loss of future earnings on ₹3,24,021/-
account of permanent (rounded off)
disability
8. Future medical expenses N.A.
9. Damages for pain, suffering ₹35,000/-
and trauma as a consequence
of the injuries
10. Loss of amenities and loss of ₹25,000/-
marriage prospects
11. Loss of expectation of life NIL
TOTAL ₹4,85,410/-
61. In respect of entitlement of the Petitioner to interest on the
awarded amount, it is duly noted that in the present matter is
pending since 01.07.2025 and the rate of interest of fixed
deposits in Nationalized banks has fluctuated several times
during the pendency of the present proceedings. Thus, in the
interest of justice and keeping in view the principles discussed
in order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baby Raksha &
Ors, MAC APP. No. 36/2023, the Petitioner is awarded interest
@ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of DAR till the date
of the award i.e. ₹28,113/- (rounded off). The amount of interim
award, if any, be deducted from the above amount, if the same
has already been paid to the Petitioner.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA by POOJA AGGARWAL In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 29 of 40 Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:14 +0530 DOD: 09.04.2026 Liability
62. As already stated above, Respondent No.1 being the driver and
principal tortfeasor; and Respondent No.2 being owner of the
offending vehicle being vicariously liable for the acts of
Respondent No.1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the
awarded amount of compensation to Petitioner. However, since
the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 at the
time of accident and the Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company
has not raised any statutory defence in denial of their liability,
hence, the Respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the
compensation amount to the Petitioner. Issue No. 2 and 3 are
decided accordingly.
Disbursement/ Release
63. As per the Financial Statement of Petitioner recorded in this
case, his monthly family expenses are approximately ₹15,000/-
to ₹20,000/- per month. Hence, while deciding the quantum and
manner of disbursement of the awarded amount, the following
directions given by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders
dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 titled
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. have to be borne
in mind:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the
saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e.
saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual
saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJAIn Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Page No. 30 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:56:19
+0530DOD: 09.04.2026
the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their
residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimants. 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. The bank shall
debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card
be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other
branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have
been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the
Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
64. Thereafter, in Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal, S.L.P. (C) No.
4484 OF 2020 as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India on 18 March, 2025 it has been further directed that:
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation awarded under
the Motor Vehicles Act. The general practice followed by the
insurance companies, where the compensation is not disputed, is to
deposit the same before the Tribunal. Instead of following that
process, a direction can always be issued to transfer the amount into
the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with intimation to the
Tribunal.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of pleadings
or at the stage of leading evidence may require the claimant(s) to
furnish their bank account particulars to the Tribunal along with the
requisite proof, so that at the stage of passing of the award the
Tribunal may direct that the amount of compensation be transferred
in the account of the claimant and if there are more than one then in
their respective accounts. If there is no bank account, then they
should be required to open the bank account either individually or
jointly with family members only. It should also be mandated that,
in case there is any change in the bank account particulars of the
claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition they should
update the same before the Tribunal. This should be ensured before
passing of the final award. It may be ensured that the bank account
should be in the name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through
guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account with anyMACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 31 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:56:23 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
person, who is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in
the bank account, particulars of which have been furnished by the
claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be treated as
satisfaction of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
(Emphasis supplied)
65. In view of the same, the award amount can now be disbursed in
the Savings Bank Account of the Petitioner. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
shall be complied with.
66. In view of the aforesaid directions, in respect of the
disbursement of the awarded amount, it is directed that upon
realization of the awarded amount of ₹5,13,523/- (Rupees Five
Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three
Only) inclusive of interest (rounded off), a sum of ₹93,523/-
(Rupees Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty
Three Only)(inclusive of the medical expenses) shall be released
to the Petitioner immediately in his Bank Account No
44978107637, IFSC Code SBIN0000726 with State Bank Of
India, Tis Hazari Court Branch, Delhi as furnished by him at the
time of recording of his financial statement.
67. The balance amount of ₹4,20,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs
Twenty Thousand Only) shall be put in 21 monthly fixed
deposits in his name in his account as mentioned above of equal
amount of ₹20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each for a
period of 01 month to 21 months respectively, with cumulative
interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No.
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
Page No. 32 of 40
AGGARWAL Date:
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:56:27 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above
said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically
be transferred in his saving account maintained in the
nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence.
68. The Respondent No.3 / The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd is
directed to deposit the awarded sum of ₹5,13,523/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Three
Only) inclusive of interest within 30 days by way of NEFT or
RTGS mode directly in the MACT account of the Petitioner as
mentioned in the Para No. 66 of this award under intimation to
the Petitioners as well as this Tribunal failing which the said
Respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for
the period of delay beyond 30 days. (Ref: Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of
2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.).
69. The concerned Manager is directed to keep the deposited
amount in an interest bearing FD till the time that the Petitioner
furnishes his bank account details, whereafter, the amount with
accrued interest be released to the Petitioner as per the award
upon completion of necessary formalities as per the rules, under
intimation to the Tribunal. The concerned Bank Manager of the
bank of the Petitioner is also directed to keep the amount in
fixed deposits as per the directions given in the award and to
send a compliance report to this court. He/ She is also directed
to ensure that no loan, advance or pre mature discharge is
allowed on the fixed deposit without an order of this court.
Digitally signed
MACT No. 530/25 by POOJA
AGGARWAL
POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
14:56:34
Page No. 33 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
70. The Petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the Award upon the
Manager of his bank for compliance, and file the receiving
thereof in the Tribunal.
71. The summary of the award as per Form XVI of the Annexure
XIII and particulars of compliance of the Provisions of the
Scheme as per Form XVII of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
1989 as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022, are also annexed with this Award as
Annexure A and B respectively, and shall form a part of this
award.
72. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of
cost.
73. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Judicial
Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for
Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
74. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 06.01.2021 in MAC APP
No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., regarding digitization of the records.
75. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
Page No. 34 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:56:40 +0530DOD: 09.04.2026
to the insurer as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on
16.03.2021 and also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award
to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
76. Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view
of Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022
[(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
77. This file be consigned to the Record Room after necessary
compliance.
78. A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put up the
same on 11.05.2026.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA
today i.e. on 9th April 2026 AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL
Date: 2026.04.09
14:56:45 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi(K)
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA by POOJA
AGGARWAL Page No. 35 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:56:49 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
ANNEXURE A
FORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE
AWARD
1. Date of accident : 10.01.2025
2. Name of the injured : Mohammad Danish
3. Age of the injured : 32 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Sector
5. Income of the injured : Assessed on the basis of
Minimum Wages of
a Matriculate Worker
prevailing in Delhi at the
relevant time.
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken
by the injured : As per record
8. Period of hospitalisation :N.A
9. Whether any permanent disability?
If yes, give details : Yes, permanent physical
disability of 11% in
relation to right lower
limb
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the
Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment ₹12,555/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance ₹15,000/-
MACT No. 530/25 Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 36 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 2026.04.09
14:56:53 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
(iii) Expenditure on special diet ₹15,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant/ ₹15,000/-
misc expenses
(v) Cost of artificial limb --
(vi) Loss of earning capacity --
(vii) Loss of income ₹43,834/-
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special treatment
or aid to the injured for the
rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and ₹35,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life ₹25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, --
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability Permanent physical
assessed and nature of disability of 11% in
disability as permanent or relation to right
temporary
lower limb
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of —
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 5.5%
capacity in relation to
MACT No. 530/25
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi Digitally
signed by
POOJA
Page No. 37 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
DOD: 09.04.2026 2026.04.09
14:56:58
+0530
disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - ₹3,42,021/-
(Income × % Earning (rounded off)
Capacity = Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION ₹4,85,410/-
(rounded off)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% p.a.
16. Interest amount up to the date ₹28,113/-
of award (rounded off)
17. Total amount including ₹5,13,523/-
interest (rounded off)
18. Award amount released ₹93,523/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs ₹4,20,000/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the Mentioned in the
award amount to the award
claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 11.05.2026
the award
1. Prepared as per award dated 09.04.2026.
2. A separate file was ordered to be prepared by the Nazir
with directions to put up the same on 11.05.2026.
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:58:36 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
09.04.2026(K)
Digitally
signed by
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL Date: Page No. 38 of 40
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:58:40
+0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
ANNEXURE B
FORM – XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (Fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (part of Annexure XIII. Ref: Rule 150A)
Compliance of provisions of Scheme to be mentioned in the
Award
1. Date of the accident 10.01.2025
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident 05.03.2025
Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A.
Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim N.A.
Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form- N.A.
VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed 01.07.2025
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or
deficiency on the part of the Yes.
Investigating Officer? If so, whether No
any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Not mentioned
Officer by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or Yes.
deficiency on the part of the Designated No
officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/ direction
warranted?
MACT No. 530/25 POOJA
Digitally signed
by POOJA
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09 Page No. 39 of 40
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:58:45 +0530
DOD: 09.04.2026
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to N.A.
the offer of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 09.04.2026
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were Yes
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) 01.07.2025
was/were directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of residence
and produce PAN Card and Adhaar
Card and the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced 24.03.2026
the passbook of their savings bank
account near the place of their residence
along with the endorsement, PAN Card
and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H. No. 1352, Gali
Claimant(s). No. 45, Jafrabad,
Delhi-110053
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank No
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition?
Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2026.04.09
14:58:51 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Presiding Officer, MACT-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari, Delhi
09.04.2026(K)
Digitally signed
MACT No. 530/25 by POOJA
AGGARWAL
In Respect of FIR No. 108/25 PS Subzi Mandi POOJA Page No. 40 of 40
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.04.09
Mohammad. Danish v Munna Bhai & Ors. 14:58:55
+0530
DOD: 09.04.2026