Delhi District Court
Rajveer Singh (Dar) vs Jagtar Singh (277/20 K Kunj) on 13 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 583/2021
FIR no. 277/2020
PS Kalindi Kunj
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01 -008427-2021
Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors.
Rajveer Singh
S/o Banwari Lal
Hathrash Uttar Pradesh.
.....Petitioner / Claimant
Versus
1. Jagtar Singh
S/o Ashok Kumar
R/o Village Hasanpur Nera
Balmiki Mandir Dera Bassi,
PS Laru Sas Nagar, Mohali, Punjab
.....R-1/ Driver
2. Mohan Singh
S/o Charanjit Singh
R/o H. No. 1A, Gali no. 1,
Sarswati Vihar, Dera Bassi
SAS Nagar, Punjab.
.....R-2/ Owner
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 41
3. Luxmi Kant
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass
R/o Village Mirpur, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
.....R-3/ Possession Holder
4. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
....R-4/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 16.08.2020
Date of filing of DAR : 29.09.2021
Date of Decision : 13.04.2026
AWARD
1. DAR
(a). Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
was filed by IO in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,
which is treated as Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read
with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of
injured Sh. Rajveer Singh (hereinafter referred as claimant) by
vehicle bearing Reg. No. PB AF 6010 (hereinafter referred as
offending vehicle), which was driven by Sh. Jagtar Singh
(hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by Sh. Mohan Singh
(hereinafter referred as R-2), currently possessed by Luxmi Kant
(hereinafter referred as R-3) and insured with M/s Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as R-4).
2. Brief Facts:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident was
received on 16.08.2020 through a PCR call, which was recorded
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 41
vide DD No. 64A at PS Kalindi Kunj. Upon receipt of the said
information, the concerned police officials immediately reached
the spot of the accident, i.e., Agra Canal Road, near NTPC Eco
Park (Lohia Pul), where they found the alleged offending vehicle
(truck) and one Apache RTR motorcycle bearing registration No.
DL-3SEE-3288 in an accidental condition. It was revealed that
the injured persons had already been removed to the hospital.
The driver of the offending truck was found present at the spot,
who disclosed his name as Jagtar Singh. No eye-witness or PCR
caller was found present at the spot at that time. Accordingly, an
FIR was registered on the basis of the information provided by
the PCR caller as recorded in DD No. 64A. The accidental
vehicles were taken into police possession. Subsequently, upon
receipt of DD No. 11A, the MLCs of three injured persons,
namely Rajesh Kumar, Vinod, and Rajveer Singh, were collected
from AIIMS Trauma Centre. The documents pertaining to the
offending vehicle were seized by the police.
(b) During investigation, the PCR caller was contacted, who
disclosed his name as Suraj Kumar. In his statement, he stated
that on the date of the accident, at about 11:25 PM, while he was
returning home via Agra Canal Road on his motorcycle and
reached near NTPC Eco Park, he noticed a gathering of people
and came to know about an accident involving a motorcycle and
a truck, in which three persons were injured. Thereafter, he made
a call to the PCR.
(c) A notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was
served upon the owner of the offending vehicle, namely Laxmi
Kant S/o Bhagwan Dass, who stated that he had purchased the
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 41
said vehicle from Mohan Singh on 12.08.2020 and confirmed
that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by
his driver, Jagtar Singh. He also produced a copy of the General
Power of Attorney. His statement was recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. Mechanical inspection of both the accidental
vehicles was conducted.
(d) On 30.08.2020, injured Rajveer Singh appeared at the
police station and got his statement recorded. He stated that he
operates a bus between Badarpur and Khatu Shyam. On
16.08.2020, after returning from Khatu Shyam to Badarpur and
he along with his relative Rajesh and one Vinod (friend of
Rajesh) were proceeding towards Madanpur Khadar, JJ Colony
on a motorcycle, which was being driven by him. When they
reached near the spot of the accident, the driver of the offending
vehicle, who was driving in a rash and negligent manner, hit the
motorcycle from the side. As a result, the motorcycle got
entangled with the truck, and the driver of the offending vehicle
suddenly applied brakes, causing the motorcycle to collide, due
to which all three fell on the road along with the motorcycle and
sustained injuries. He further stated that a public person made a
call to the police at number 100 and the driver of the offending
truck was apprehended at the spot. The statements of the other
injured persons, namely Rajesh Kumar and Vinod, were also
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and they corroborated the
version of Rajveer Singh.
(e) The site plan was prepared at the instance of injured
Rajveer Singh. The documents of the offending vehicle were
verified from the concerned authority and were found to be in
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 41
order. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the driver of the offending vehicle for offences under
Sections 279/338 IPC for driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and causing injuries to the victims. The
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was also filed by the
Investigating Officer before this Tribunal.
3. Reply:
(a) A written statement was filed on behalf of the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle, wherein they specifically denied
any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. It was stated that on the date of the accident,
R-1 was driving the truck with due care and caution, and that the
accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the injured
persons. It was further stated that the injured persons, while
riding the motorcycle at a high speed, came from the side and
collided with the truck. It was also averred that R-1 had extended
help to the injured persons after the accident. Other general and
routine defences were also taken. It was further stated that the
offending vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident,
and in the event any liability to pay compensation is fastened, the
same would be that of the insurance company.
(b) A written statement was also filed on behalf of the
Insurance Company, wherein it was contended that the alleged
accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the
motorcycle, who failed to maintain a safe distance from the
offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that at the time of the
accident, three persons were riding on the motorcycle (triple
riding), in violation of traffic rules. It was also contended that the
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 41
driver of the motorcycle was also not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the relevant time. The Insurance
Company, however, admitted that the offending vehicle was duly
insured under a valid policy on the date of the accident.
4. Issues:
(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 02.11.2021:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
16.08.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. PB AF
6010 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.
5. Disability Assessment:
(a) Disability Assessment Certificate was received as per
which injured was diagnosed with 100% permanent hearing
impairment in relation to left ear (total deafness).
6. Evidence:
(a) Matter was then listed for Petitioner Evidence. PW-1 Sh.
Rajbir Singh tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and
relied upon relevant documents pertaining to accident including
medical treatment records, disability certificates, DAR and also
his identify proofs as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/7. He was further
cross examined on behalf of counsel for insurance company
(b) Other injured /witnesses were separately examined in other
connected case bearing MACT no. 584/2021 & 585/2021.
(c) Petitioner Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 41
Respondent Evidence. Any evidence was however not led on
behalf of any of the respondents despite opportunity. Matter was
subsequently listed for Final Arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
(a) Final Arguments were advanced by the contesting
counsels.
(b) Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
respondent no.1. It is further submitted that the injured has
suffered 100% hearing impairment in respect of his left ear,
resulting in total deafness on that side. It is argued that due to the
said injury, the claimant had to loss his job as he was a driver by
profession.
(c) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company argued that the accident did not occur due to fault of
the truck driver. It is submitted that the motorcycle had hit the
truck from behind and the damages on the rear side of the truck
clearly show that the truck did not hit the motorcycle. It is further
argued that there were three persons riding on the motorcycle
which itself amounts to negligence. It is also pointed out that
only one person was wearing helmet. It is further submitted that
the driver of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving
licence and had also failed to maintain safe distance from the
vehicle ahead. It is argued that the medical bills have already
been reimbursed. It is also contended that though the claimant
has claimed 100% hearing impairment in one ear, he himself
admitted during cross examination that he can hear properly from
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 41
the other ear and therefore there is no functional disability. It is
prayed that there was contributory negligence on part of the
motorcycle driver and at least 50% deduction is liable to be
made. Ld. counsel for the insurance company has also placed
reliance upon the judgments titled Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd. vs. Jagdish & Ors. (MAC APP No. 1016/2015 &
CM APPL No. 16295/2023) and Nishan Singh & Ors. vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
10145 of 2016), in support of his contention regarding deduction
on account of contributory negligence.
8. Discussion:
(a) 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
16.08.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. PB AF
6010 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
(b) PW-1/injured has deposed about the manner of accident
through his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and stated that on the date of
accident he along with other injured persons was travelling on
motorcycle. He stated that Rajesh, who is his cousin, came to his
office at about 10.30 PM on his motorcycle and thereafter they
picked injured Vinod from Nayapul at about 11.00 PM. He has
further clarified the sitting position by stating that he was driving
the motorcycle, Rajesh was sitting behind him and Vinod was
sitting at the rearmost side. He has stated that the place of
accident was about 2 km from the place where Vinod was picked
up. He has further stated that there was no traffic at that time,
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 41
there was no divider and only one vehicle could pass on each
side of the road and even the street lights were not functioning.
He has clearly stated that the offending vehicle came from the
opposite direction in zig-zag manner and hit their motorcycle,
due to which all of them fell down and sustained injuries. He has
denied any negligence on his part. He was cross examined by
learned counsel for the Insurance Company at length, however
nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony. He
remained consistent on material aspects and denied the
suggestion that the accident occurred due to his negligence or
due to not maintaining safe distance.
(c) Injured Rajesh has also entered the witness box in the
connected case and supported the case of the claimants. He has
stated that on the date of accident he had gone to meet his
relative and thereafter they were travelling together on the
motorcycle. He has stated that they reached the place of accident
at about 11.25-11.50 PM. He has also stated that the street lights
were not working at the spot. He has further stated that the
offending vehicle hit their motorcycle and due to the impact they
fell down. He has denied any negligence on their part.
(d) Similarly, injured Vinod has also supported the case of the
claimants. He has stated that he joined the other two injured
persons and all of them were travelling on the motorcycle. He
has also clarified the sitting position and stated that the offending
vehicle came and hit them, due to which they fell down and
sustained injuries. He has also denied any negligence on their
part.
(e) All the three injured persons have been cross examined by
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 41
the Insurance Company, however they have remained firm on the
fact that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. Their testimonies are natural and trustworthy
and there is no reason to disbelieve them.
(f) The police record also fully supports the case of the
claimants. The information regarding the accident was given to
the police immediately and the police reached the spot without
delay. The offending vehicle as well as the motorcycle were
found at the spot. Both the vehicles were seized and their
mechanical inspection was conducted. Statements of the injured
persons were recorded and documents were verified. Notice was
also given to the owner who confirmed that the offending vehicle
was being driven by respondent no.1 at the time of accident.
Thereafter, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle. There is nothing on record to show that the
said charge sheet or FIR was ever challenged. It is also relevant
to note that the driver of the offending vehicle has not entered
into the witness box to explain his version of the accident. No
evidence in defence has been led. Even the Insurance Company
has not produced the driver to rebut the case of the claimants. In
these circumstances, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against the driver of the offending vehicle.
(g) The Insurance Company has tried to point out certain
variations in the statements of the injured persons during cross
examination, however the same are minor in nature and are
bound to occur due to lapse of time. On the main aspect, all the
injured persons have consistently stated that the offending
vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and had
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 41
hit their motorcycle. Their version is also supported by the
medical record, site plan and mechanical inspection report. Thus,
from the testimonies of the injured persons coupled with the
police record, it stands proved that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent
no.1.
(h) So far as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned,
it has come on record that three persons were travelling on the
motorcycle and the fact of triple riding stands admitted.
Undoubtedly, triple riding amounts to a violation of traffic rules
and may, in certain circumstances, affect the balance and control
of the vehicle. However, in the present case, there is nothing on
record to establish that the accident occurred due to any
negligence on the part of the victims or that the motorcycle had
become unstable or was being driven in an unsafe manner on
account of triple riding. The consistent case of the claimants is
that the offending truck hit the motorcycle while attempting to
overtake, which was a situation not within the control of the
victims. In the absence of any cogent evidence linking the act of
triple riding with the cause of the accident, mere violation of
traffic rules, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of contributory
negligence. Accordingly, no deduction is warranted on this
ground. Further, the contention of the insurance company
regarding non-wearing of helmets also remains unsubstantiated.
On the contrary, the victims have consistently stated that they
were wearing helmets at the relevant time. Hence, this plea also
does not merit acceptance particularly in case of injured Rajesh
and Rajveer.
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 41
(i) It is settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant
step towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of
the offending vehicle. (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.)
(g) 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. This view has been supported in the judgments of
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. , (2009) 13 SCC 530;
Kaushnumma Begum & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); and
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287.
(h) All material on record, including GD entries, FIR, charge-
sheet, mechanical inspection reports, findings, also as no attempt
has been made by the contesting respondents to set up any
defence support the necessary inference that the accident
occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending
vehicle. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimant and against
the respondents.
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 41
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not
niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free
country in generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Nirmala Devi (1979 )4SCC 365}
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.
.
.
.
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 41
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 signs of an
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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 41
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
shattered human physical frame 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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 41
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
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 (1880) 5 APP CAS 25 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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 41
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
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 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 Raj Kumar (supra) as referred
and relied in 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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 41
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
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 likelyMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 41
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.”
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,
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 41
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
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. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
A. Expenditure on Medical Treatment: The claimant has neither
claimed any amount towards medical expenses nor placed on
record any medical bills or treatment documents. In the absence
of any documentary proof, there is no basis to award any amount
under the head of medical expenses. Accordingly, no amount is
granted towards medical expenses.
B. Expenditure towards conveyance: The claimant has asserted
that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was incurred towards conveyance.
However, no documentary evidence has been placed on record toMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 41
substantiate the said claim. Nonetheless, it is a matter of common
knowledge that an injured person is required to undertake
multiple visits to hospitals/medical facilities for treatment,
follow-ups and rehabilitation, often accompanied by an attendant.
In such circumstances, some expenditure on conveyance is
inevitable. Accordingly, on the basis of probabilities and the
nature of injuries sustained, an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards
conveyance expenses is awarded.
C. Expenditure on Special Diet: The claimant has deposed that he
incurred an expenditure of Rs.30,000/- towards special diet;
however, no documentary evidence, apart from the medical
record, has been placed on record to substantiate the said claim.
Nevertheless, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
claimant, it can be reasonably inferred that he would have
required a nutritious, protein-rich and calcium-enriched diet for
proper and expeditious recovery. It is well settled that
compensation under this head cannot be denied merely for want
of documentary proof, as such expenses are ordinarily incurred
but seldom supported by bills. The amount claimed appears to be
reasonable and commensurate with the injuries suffered.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded to the claimant
towards special diet.
D. Expenditure for Attendant: It is noted that the injured has not
placed on record any documentary evidence to substantiate
expenditure towards attendant charges. He has, however, deposed
that he engaged an attendant and incurred an expenditure of
Rs.50,000/- towards the same. Considering the nature and extent
of injuries sustained, it is reasonably probable that the injuredMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 41
would have required assistance for his day-to-day activities and
personal care during the period of treatment and recovery. The
medical record reflects that the injured suffered grievous injuries,
including bleeding from ears and nose, multiple bodily injuries,
and 100% hearing impairment in the left ear, which itself
indicates the severity of trauma suffered. It is well settled that
even if such services are rendered gratuitously by family
members, the claimant is entitled to compensation under this
head. In view of the above facts and circumstances, a sum of
Rs.50,000/- is held to be just and reasonable and is accordingly
awarded towards attendant charges.
E. Loss of earning : The injured has asserted that he was working
as a driver and used to operate a bus from Badarpur to Khatu
Shyam Mandir, earning Rs.35,000/- per month. However, no
documentary evidence has been placed on record to substantiate
either his income or the nature of such employment.
Nevertheless, the injured has placed on record his driving licence
(Ex. PW1/4), which provides a reasonable basis to assess his
vocation as that of a driver. Accordingly, his income is assessed
under the category of a skilled worker. As per Aadhar Card (Ex.
PW1/1), the injured is a resident of Hathras, Uttar Pradesh.
Therefore, his income is assessed on the basis of minimum wages
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh at the time of the accident
for a skilled worker, which were Rs.10,627/- per month.
(i) The injured has further deposed that he lost his job due to
the injuries sustained in the accident. The medical record reflects
that he suffered severe injuries in the temporal region and other
parts of the body. As per the disability certificate on record, heMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 22 of 41
has suffered 100% hearing impairment in the left ear.
Considering his profession as a driver, such disability would
significantly impair his ability to safely perform his duties. In
occupations like driving, proper hearing is essential, and any
such impairment poses a serious risk not only to the injured but
also to others. Therefore, his assertion regarding loss of
employment appears to be plausible and acceptable. However, in
the absence of specific evidence regarding the exact period of
incapacity, a reasonable estimation has to be made. Considering
the nature of injuries and the extent of disability, it is presumed
that the injured remained incapacitated from work for a period of
six months.
(ii) Accordingly, the loss of income is calculated as under:
Rs.10,627/- × 6 = Rs.63,762/-
F. Loss of future earning: It is settled that a person is required to
be compensated not just for the physical injury but also for the
loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he might entail for
the rest of his life on account of those injuries which he sustained
in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the
injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could
have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K.
Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
F(i) The claimant has been assessed with 100% permanent
hearing impairment in relation to the left ear, resulting in
complete unilateral deafness. Such impairment assumesMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 23 of 41
significance, particularly considering his profession as a driver,
where proper auditory perception is essential for safe driving.
F(ii) 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.”
F(iii) 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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 24 of 41
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
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.
F(iv) 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.
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 25 of 41
F(v) Hon’ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal
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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 26 of 41
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 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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 27 of 41
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.
.
.
.
.
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(vi) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni v 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
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer orMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 28 of 41
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.
F(vii) 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.
F(viii) The claimant has been assessed with 100% permanent
hearing impairment in relation to the left ear, resulting in
complete unilateral deafness. The primary issue that arises for
consideration is the extent of functional disability suffered by the
claimant in relation to his avocation. Ld. counsel for the
insurance company has argued that no functional disability
should be attributed, as the claimant, in his cross-examination,
conceded that he is able to hear from his right ear and, therefore,
deafness in one ear does not materially affect his earningMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 29 of 41
capacity, particularly in respect of manual work. This contention,
however, cannot be accepted in its entirety. It is true that the
claimant has admitted that he can hear from his other ear.
However, such admission does not ipso facto lead to the
conclusion that the loss of hearing in one ear has no adverse
functional impact. Human hearing is binaural in nature, and loss
of hearing in one ear significantly affects sound localization,
depth perception of sound, and the ability to accurately judge the
direction and distance of approaching vehicles or warning
signals.
(a) The said impairment assumes greater significance in the
present case, as the claimant was working as a driver by
profession. In such an occupation, the ability to perceive sounds
from all directions such as horns, sirens, and surrounding traffic
is crucial for safe and effective performance of duties. Unilateral
deafness, therefore, poses a substantial risk and limitation in
performing driving functions and may endanger not only the
claimant but also other road users. Thus, while the claimant may
retain some residual hearing capacity, it cannot be said that he is
functionally unaffected. On the contrary, his ability to continue in
his previous profession stands materially impaired. Further, the
claimant is about 32 years of age, and at this stage of life, a
forced change of profession is not matter of little importance. A
person who has acquired skill and experience in a particular
vocation over the years cannot be expected to seamlessly shift to
another occupation without undergoing a period of adjustment,
loss of efficiency, and consequent loss of income. The transition
to a new line of work would require time, effort, and possibly
lower initial earnings, thereby adversely affecting his earningMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 30 of 41
capacity. In view of the above discussion, though the claimant is
not rendered completely unemployable, it is evident that his
functional capacity in relation to his established profession has
been substantially affected. Balancing the facts and
circumstances, this Tribunal assesses the functional disability at
50% for the purpose of determining loss of future earning
capacity.
F(ix) Future Prospect: It is settled that future prospect (as laid
down in 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.
(Support drawn from Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors.,
AIR 2020 SC 4424).
F(x) PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/1 on record as
per which his date of birth is 01.01.1988, therefore, his age as on
the date of accident was about 32. Since the injured was below
the age of 40 years (at the time of accident) and purportedly
earning fixed income thus the percentage towards future prospect
is taken to be @ 40 % {as laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra)}. Further, multiplier of 16 is applicable {as per table
mentioned in para no.40 of Sarla Verma (supra)}.
F(xi) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs.10,627/- x 12) = Rs.1,27,524/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs.1,27,524/-) = Rs.51,010/-
__________________
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 31 of 41
(c) Total = Rs.1,78,534/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.1,78,534/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
50% (Rs.1,78,534/-X 16) = Rs. 14,28,272/- 24. NON-PECUNIARY LOSS (i) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are
designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be
ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages
are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and
physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life,
inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and
unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in
the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life
which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature
of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of
Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well,
primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured
and the effect of those upon his future life.
(ii) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):
“Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and
suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is
taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being
interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. ThusMACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 32 of 41
there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a
provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries,
and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury
will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,
including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is
reflected in the actual amount of the award.
(As also referred in the case of Sidram…………………)
7. In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999)
6 SCC 667, the Supreme Court held that the object of an award of
damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or
injury he has suffered. The Court further held that the elements of
damage recognized by law are divisible into two main groups:
pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. While the pecuniary loss is
capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non- pecuniary loss
is not so calculable. Non-pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of
money, not as a substitute or replacement for other money, but as a
substitute, what McGregor says, is generally more important than
money: it is the best that a court can do.
8. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the Supreme
Court held that if a collection of cases on the quantum of damages is
to be useful, it must necessarily be classified in such a way that
comparable cases can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases
are alike but still, it is possible to make a broad classification which
enables one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be
taken into account while calculating damages.
(referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh.
S. Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. 605/2015 passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court)
(iii) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads
involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the
loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to a
normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries
sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for
compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far
as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily
involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations,MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 33 of 41
however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis
of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective
sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of
disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are
various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss
(general damages) is assessed:
(iv) Damages for (i) pain and suffering as well as (ii) mental /
physical shock : The mental and physical loss cannot always
be arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the
intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although
any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money,
however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money
can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme
Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi are relevant in the context:
“10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant
who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on
account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this
background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain
and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a
lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the
physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by
courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation
payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to
compensate such injury “so far as money can compensate” because
it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or
personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered
physical frame.”
(v) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the
case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty
And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of
Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and
suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 34 of 41
to the context are reproduced hereunder:
“113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as
observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be
mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes
physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep
mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant
trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different
from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with
degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal
choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s mind,
whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity
(which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right
to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the
person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she
or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the
victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award
niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is
resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra)]
(vi) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh
(supra) observed as follows:
“2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or
for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of
realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant
of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of
law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor
a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of
the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question
whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must
provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of
suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse
of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations
about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the
individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human
dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan AIR 2018
SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India).
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 35 of 41
(vii) The injured suffered grievous injuries in the accident,
including trauma to the temporal region accompanied by
bleeding from the ears and nose, along with other bodily injuries.
The medical record further reflects that he has sustained 100%
permanent hearing impairment in relation to the left ear, resulting
in complete unilateral deafness. It is evident that the injured must
have undergone immense physical pain, mental shock, and
emotional distress not only at the time of the accident but also
during the prolonged period of treatment and recovery. The
permanent loss of hearing in one ear is a serious disability, which
affects the quality of life, sensory perception, and overall well-
being of the injured. There is no precise yardstick to quantify
such pain, suffering, and trauma in monetary terms; however, a
just and reasonable compensation is required to be awarded,
keeping in view the nature of injuries, extent of permanent
disability, duration of treatment, and its lasting impact on the life
of the injured. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1 lakh
under each head) is awarded to the injured towards pain and
suffering as well as mental and physical shock.
(viii) Loss of amenities of life: It compensates 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. 50,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
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
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 36 of 41
concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : As Nil
discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs. 20,000/-
discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.30,000/-
discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of earning during the period of Rs.63,762/-
treatment:
(vi) Loss of Future Income Rs.14,28,272/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 2,00,000/-
trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 50,000/-
3 Total Compensation Rs.18,42,034/-
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’ble Delhi High Court).
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 37 of 41
27. Liability:-
(a) Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any
statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred
on account of speedy and rash driving of offending vehicle. It is
settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify
owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser.
Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be
payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with
simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of DAR till
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
Out of total award amount, Rs.15,00,000/- along with
proportionate interest shall be kept in form of monthly FDR of
Rs. 20,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released to him in
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 38 of 41
his bank account.
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
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. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon’ble High Court, vide
reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall
invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any
nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing
instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical
intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in
the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e.
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 39 of 41
the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual
savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) The 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 claimant.
(d) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near
the place of their residence.
(e) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of
the claimant near the place of their residence.
(f) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(g) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or
debit card to claimant (s). 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 freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit
card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any
other branch of the bank.
(h) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant to the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card
have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission
of the Court and claimant shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed
for compliance.
33. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 16.08.2020
2 Name of injured Rajveer Singh
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 40 of 41
3 Age of the injured 32 years
4 Occupation of the Driver
injured
5 Income of the injured As per minimum wages
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and disability
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any permanent Yes.
disability?
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.
Announced in the open court
ADITI Digitally signed
by ADITI GARG
Date: 2026.04.13
on 13.04.2026 GARG 16:44:33 +0530
(Aditi Garg)
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
13.04.2026
MACT No.:583/2021 Rajveer Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 41 of 41
[ad_1]
Source link
