Delhi District Court
Mohd Irshad vs Pramod Kr on 23 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010091252024
MACT No. : 416/2024
FIR No. : 87/2024
PS : Kamla Market
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Sh. Mohd. Irshad (injured/petitioner)
S/o Sh. Israr,
R/o H.No.1292, Rakab Ganj, Ganj Meer Khan,
Darya Ganj, Delhi GPO, North Delhi, Delhi-110006.
.....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Pramod Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o H.No.C-7/154, St. No.7, Meet Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi.
2. Sh. Tarun Singh (owner of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh,
R/o R-486, GF, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
Asaf Ali Road, Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 06.06.2024
Judgment reserved on : 23.05.2026
Date of Award : 23.05.2026
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:18:05 +0530
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 1 of 40
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
06.06.2024 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 08.03.2024 at about 12:00 PM at
Minto Road Red Light, New Delhi. Mr. Mohd. Irshad (hereinafter
referred to as the petitioner) had suffered grievous injuries in the said
accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing registration
No.RJ-11PA-5114 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The
said vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Sh. Pramod Kumar;
owned by respondent No.2 Sh. Tarun Singh and insured with respondent
no.3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
08.03.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 39A,
the information of present accident was handed over to HC Narender,
who alongwith Ct. Anil went to the spot Minto Road Red Light, New
Delhi where no one found at the spot of accident. They got to know that
the injured had been taken to LNJP hospital and collected the MLC
no.116115741/24 of injured Mohd. Irshad. Injured denied to give his
statement as he was suffering from pain.
3. On 09.03.2024, injured came to the PS and IO recorded his
statement. Thereafter, FIR u/s 279/337 IPC against the driver of the
offending vehicle was registered on the basis of MLC and statement of
injured. Injured had produced his accidental scooty before the IO.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:18:10MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. +0530
Page 2 of 40
Thereafter, IO had taken the same into his custody and deposited the
same in maalkhana. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the instance
of complainant. Thereafter, IO served the notice u/s. 133 MV Act upon
the owner of the offending vehicle. Upon the said notice, owner had
given written reply mentioning that the at the time of accident the
offending vehicle was being driven by Mr. Deepak.
4. Thereafter, owner had handed over the offending vehicle as
well as the driver of the offending vehicle to the IO. IO interrogated Mr.
Deepak, who informed that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was being driven by Mr. Pramod Kumar. The said Mr. Pramod Kumar
was produced by Mr. Deepak before the IO. At the same time injured
came to the PS and he identified the driver i.e. Mr. Pramod that at the
time of accident, he was driving the offending vehicle. Thereafter, IO
interrogated Mr. Pramod Kumar, who accepted that at the time of
accident he was driving the offending vehicle. Thereafter, IO served the
notice u/s. 41 A CrPC upon Mr. Pramod and bound down him for further
investigation.
5. Thereafter, the documents of the offending vehicle were
produced by the owner before the IO. Thereafter, mechanical inspection
of both the accidental vehicles were got conducted. Thereafter, MLC of
the injured was submitted in the hospital for the final opinion. The result
was opined as “grievous” on MLC of the injured. Accordingly, the
Section 337 IPC was changed to Section 338 IPC by the IO. IO had
further added u/s.184 MV Act upon the driver of the offending vehicle.
Thereafter, documents pertaining to the offending vehicle were got
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.05.23
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 3 of 40
15:18:14
+0530
verified and the same were found to be correct. Thereafter, IO released
the offending vehicle on superdari. After completion of investigation,
chargesheet for the offences u/s. 279/338 IPC & u/s. 184 MV Act was
filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Pramod before the
concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
6. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 on 04.10.2024,
wherein it was stated that the respondent no. 1 is an ambulance driver
and no accident took place from his vehicle. However, the petitioner
himself was driving his motorcycle in a rashly and negligently in zig
zag manner and suddenly came in front of vehicle of respondent no. 1
and had fallen down without touching of the vehicle of respondent no.
1. Hence, the present case is liable to be dismissed.
7. No WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Even he
stopped appearing in the present matter. Hence, he was proceeded
against ex-parte vide order dated 04.10.2024.
8. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 insurance company was
filed on 06.08.2024, wherein it is stated that the driver of the offending
vehicle was having Driving Licence of “NT” whereas CAT Ambulance
is commercial vehicle. Further, it was stated that the petitioner was
driving his scooty without a valid driving license and helmet. He also
admitted that he could not see the offending vehicle as he was driving
behind a DTC bus and collided with the offending vehicle. Therefore,
the respondent no. 3 is not liable to pay compensation to the injured. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:18:19MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 4 of 40
+0530
ISSUES
9. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
04.10.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered grievous injuries
in an accident that took place on 08.03.2024 at
about 12:00 PM at Minto Road Red Light, New
Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No.
RJ-11PA-5114 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no.1 Pramod Kumar, owned by
respondent no.2 Tarun Singh and insured with
respondent no.3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
10. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1 on
29.11.2025. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is
Ex.PW-1/A and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Î’. He relied
upon the following documents:
1. Copy of his Aadhaar Card which is Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Original medical documents as Ex.PW1/2 (colly) (containing 11
pages).
3. Original medical bills and receipts as Ex. PW1/3 (colly) (containing
16 pages) (page nos.6, 8, 10, 11, 13,14, 15 and 16 are computer
generated copies) (objected to the mode of proof).
4. Copy of his PAN card as Mark A. (The same was exhibited in my
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 5 of 40
15:18:23
+0530
affidavit as Ex. PW1/4 and now de-exhibited).
5. Copy of his DL as Ex. PW1/5 (original DL is seized in the court of
Ld. JMFC).
6. Permanent Disability certificate as Ex. PW1/6.
7. DAR as Ex. PW1/7 (colly).
11. PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsels for
respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3. Thereafter, vide separate
statement of petitioner, the PE was closed on 29.11.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
12. No RE was led on behalf of the respondents. Hence, the
RE was closed vide order dated 19.02.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and
financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were
heard on behalf of parties.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the
record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured suffered grievous injuries in an
accident that took place on 08.03.2024 at about 12:00 PM at Minto
Road Red Light, New Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No.
RUCHIKA
SINGLAMACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 6 of 40
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.05.23
15:18:36 +0530
RJ-11PA-5114 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Pramod
Kumar, owned by respondent no.2 Tarun Singh and insured with
respondent no.3 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.?
15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 08.03.2024 at about 12:00 PM, he was
driving his scooty. When he reached at Minto Road Red Light, New
Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no. 1 came
from wrong side very fast and carelessly in a negligent manner and hit
his vehicle with great force. It is stated that due to the said accident, the
petitioner fell and suffered injuries. The petitioner has reiterated the said
facts on oath as PW1. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO.
The petitioner was treated at the hospital wherein it has specifically
mentioned that the injuries are due to a road traffic accident. Hence, it is
submitted that it is proved that the respondent no. 1 was driving the
negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which the petitioner
suffered injuries.
16. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent
no. 3 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
the petitioner.
17. Record perused.
18. Though the respondents have denied the the rash and
negligent act of the respondent no. 1, but it is pertinent to mention that
in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. 2026.05.23
15:18:40
+0530
Page 7 of 40
established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the
strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present
cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla
Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13
SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
19. It is a matter of record that the respondent no. 1 was
chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was 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.”
20. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. 15:18:46
+0530
Page 8 of 40
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
21. Further, the petitioner has categorically alleged that the
respondent no.1 was coming from the wrong side. The same is also
supported by the site plan prepared by the IO. The IO has also added
Section 184 MV Act in the chargesheet, which is the offence for
dangerous driving. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to
respondent no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior
enmity with respondent no. 1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as
to why the petitioner will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not
been driving the offending vehicle.
22. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res
ipse loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for
itself”. Thus, 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. No evidence was led by the
respondents no. 1 & 2 to discharge this onus. Hence, an adverse
inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of
Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL.
52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP.
428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi &
Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM
Digitally
signed by
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA Page 9 of 40
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:18:52
+0530
APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes,
noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was
required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that
the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us,
filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie
points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle
negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were
to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that
the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the
Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of
no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue
in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and
circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 10 of 40
15:19:01
+0530
record and manifestly wrong.”
24. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances,
the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed
thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash
and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also
stands established that respondent no. 2 was the registered owner of the
offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position that the offending
vehicle was insured with respondent no.3.
Contributory Negligence:
25. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has argued that the
petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence as he was driving the
scooty with valid driving license. However, the petitioner proved his
driving license as Ex. PW1/6. Hence, this argument does not need any
further discussion.
26. Secondly, it is submitted that contributory negligence can
be attributed upon the petitioner as he was driving the scooty without a
helmet. In Ram Niwas Meena & Anr vs Neeraj Kumar Mishra
MAC.APP. 577/2017 decided on 5 September, 2017, the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has observed:
“7. It, however, must be noted in this very context that the
entire record of investigation does not indicate, not even
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Date: 2026.05.23
15:19:05 +0530 Page 11 of 40
remotely, presence of any helmet either of the rider Ranjeet
Mishra or of the pillion rider Naresh Kumar Mishra having
been found either at the scene or on their person. No injury on
account of impact of helmets on their respective heads if worn
at the relevant point of time has been noticed either in the MLC
or by the autopsy doctor. In these circumstances, mere word of
PW-1 that both the riders were sporting helmets cannot be
accepted. A finding must be returned that both were riding on
the motorcycle without taking the precaution of wearing
helmets.
8. In above facts and circumstances, while the finding of the
tribunal holding the bus driver responsible for the collision
cannot be questioned, it must be concluded that both the riders
of the motorcycle had also contributed to the cause for the
serious injuries suffered by each of them in that they did not
take precaution of wearing the helmets on their respective
heads. The element of contributory negligence, in the facts and
circumstances, is assessed to the extent of twenty five per cent
(25%). Deduction to that extent from the compensation
awarded by the tribunal will have to be made. Ordered
accordingly.
9. Thus, both appeals are partly allowed. The compensation
determined by the tribunal in the two cases shall be paid after
deducting twenty five per cent (25%) on account of
contributory negligence.”
27. In the present matter, the petitioner has not suffered injuries
on his head. His disability is also in his arm. Hence, there is no nexus
between the accident and his not wearing a helmet. Hence, no
contributory negligence is attributed upon the petitioner.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:19:10
+0530MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 12 of 40
Injury:
28. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner has suffered
grievous injuries in the present matter. To prove the same, the petitioner
has relied upon his MLC dated 08.03.2024 issued by Lok Nayak
Hospital, Delhi as per which he was brought to the hospital with history
of road traffic accident. He suffered various injuries on his hand
including a fracture His medical record is Ex. PW1/2 (colly). He has
proved a Discharge Summary dated 31.03.2024 issued by Lok Nayak
Hospital, Delhi, as per which he was admitted in the hospital on
23.03.2024 and discharged on 31.03.2024. He was operated upon and
plating was done. He has also relied upon his Disability Certificate as
per which he has suffered 8% permanent disability in his right arm and
left thumb.
29. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:19:17 +0530MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 13 of 40
30. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(`Act’ for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable
and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal shall have to
assess the damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy, though some
conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss
which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means
that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. ( See
C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970
SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd . –
1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby – 1970 AC
467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. 15:19:22
+0530 Page 14 of 40
(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).”
31. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the
accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
32. The petitioner has claimed the medical expenses to the tune
of Rs. 25,248/-. The petitioner has placed bills to the tune of Rs.
28,693/- on record. Hence, a sum of Rs. 28,693/- is awarded to him
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 15 of 40
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:19:26 +0530
under this head.
Loss of income:
33. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the
time of the accident, he was working as a Salesman with a stationary
company at Delhi and earning a sum of Rs. 22,500/- pm. However, it is
conceded that his income proof is not available. Hence, his income may
be assessed as per the applicable minimum wages. Further, it is stated
that due to the accident, the petitioner could not work for 10 months.
34. Record perused.
35. No evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that he
was earning Rs. 22,500/- pm. His educational documents are not proved
on record. In view of the same, his income shall be assessed as per the
minimum wages. However, the petitioner is holding a valid driving
license, which is Ex. PW1/6. In IFFCO Tokio GIC Vs. Mithlesh Devi
MAC App 947/2018 decided on 26.09.2019, the Hon’ble High Court
has observed that:
“A person bearing a driving license possesses a skill which is
tested and certified by the Road Transport Authority. The
skill is certified by the state, therefore, such person would be
entitled to be classified as a skilled workman… In these
circumstances, the Ld. Tribunal has rightly taken into
consideration the minimum wages applicable to a skilled
person”.
36. Similar observations have been given by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raj Singh MAC. APP
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 16 of 40
15:19:31
+0530
364/2016 decided on 20/11/2019 and IFFCO Tokio General Vs. Indra
Devi MAC.APP 1135/2017 decided on 29.05.2018. Further, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Kirti & Anr. Vs. OIC Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 19-20 of
2021 decided on 05.01.2021 has observed that where a person
maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family as evidenced
by his use of motorcycle for commuting, his income can be ascertained
as applicable to skilled workers.
37. Hence, in view of the above mentioned observations of the
Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the income of the
deceased is assessed as per the minimum wages payable to a skilled
person, as he was holding a valid driving license. The date of the
accident is 08.03.2024. Hence, as per the applicable notification, his
monthly income is assessed to be Rs.21,215/-.
38. It is the matter of record that due to the accident, the
petitioner suffered injuries. He has proved a Discharge Summary dated
31.03.2024 issued by Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi, as per which he was
admitted in the hospital on 23.03.2024 and discharged on 31.03.2024.
He was operated upon and plating was done. He went for follow ups till
January 2025. He has also relied upon his Disability Certificate as per
which he has suffered 8% permanent disability in his right arm and left
thumb. However, as submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, there
are no documents that he was on bed rest for the entire period. In view
of the same, considering his treatment record, it can be assumed that the
petitioner could not have worked for about 6 months due to the injuries.
Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss of
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 17 of 40
SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:19:35 +0530
income for 6 months i.e. Rs.21,215/- x 6 = Rs. 1,27,290/-.
Special diet:
39. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards
special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in
view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems that he must
have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure towards
special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the petitioner
under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
40. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on conveyance, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the
view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the
petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
41. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 36,000/- towards
attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense on
an attendant. However, considering the period of treatment of the
petitioner and his injuries, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.
36,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
42. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
Page 18 of 40
15:19:40
+0530
admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he
actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an
effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and
reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the
injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him
etc., he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and
sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
43. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under the
head for loss due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record
to prove the same but keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied
that he would definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of
Rs. 35,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss due to
Mental & Physical Shock”.
Loss of amenities:
44. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- under the
head this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same
but keeping in view his injuries, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Disfiguration:
45. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 50,000/- under the
head this head. However, no disfiguration is proved to have been caused
to the petitioner. Hence, no amount is awarded to the petitioner under
this head. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:19:44 +0530MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 19 of 40
Loss of marriage prospects
46. Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
47. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under
this head towards loss of earning. Considering the nature of the injuries
suffered by the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Future medical expenses
48. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 40,000/- for future medical
expenses for treatment of implant removal. Considering the treatment
record, the said amount i.e. a sum of Rs. 40,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
49. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the tune of 8%. Due to the
same, he is unable to work. Hence, his functional disability may be
considered as 100%. Same is opposed by Ld. Counsel for respondent
no.3. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as a Salesman and the
disability in his arm shall not affect his ability to work. Hence, he has
not suffered from any functional disability.
50. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLAMACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:19:50
+0530
Page 20 of 40
SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“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. 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 terns of money, to arrive at the future
loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier
method used to determine loss of dependency).”
51. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability
suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. The disability of the
petitioner is not disputed. The petitioner is working as a Salesman. At
the time of the recording of his financial statement, he has stated that he
is working with the same company as prior to the accident on the same
salary. As per the Disability Certificate, he has suffered 8% permanent
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 21 of 40
2026.05.23
15:19:55
+0530
disability in his right arm and left thumb, which is likely to affect his
arm movement. Though, right now his employment may not suffer, but
his promotional avenues may suffer. In view of the same, his functional
disability is ascertained to be as 4%.
52. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
petitioner to be Rs.21,215/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of
petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner’s
Aadhar card Ex. PW1/1 and his PAN card Mark A, his date of birth is
07.11.1984. However, in his driving license Ex. PW1/5, his date of birth
is mentioned as 07.11.1982. The aadhar card was issued earlier. Hence,
the date mentioned on the same shall be taken as the correct date. The
date of accident is 08.03.2024. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the
date of accident was 39 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been
upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590
of 2014, the multiplier of ’15’ is held applicable for calculating the loss
of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
53. Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700
(SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 40% as he was less
than 40 years at the time of accident. As already discussed in the
preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been taken as
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 22 of 40
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:00
+0530
Rs.21,215/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on account of
functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs.21,215/-
Annual Income Rs.21,215/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,54,580/-
Add Future Prospects @40% Rs. 1,01,832/-
Total income Rs. 3,56,412/- Disability @ 4% Rs. 3,56,412/- x 4%= Rs. 14,256.48 Loss of Income after Rs. 14,256.48 x 15 = Rs. 2,13,484.20 multiplier (15) (rounded off to Rs. 2,13,484/-)
54. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the
petitioner shall be entitled to Rs.2,13,484/- under the head future loss of
income.
Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life span on account of
disability:
55. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under
the head this head.
56. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:04
+0530
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 23 of 40
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees)
Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 28,693/-
Monthly income of injured Rs.21,215/-
Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 1,27,290/-
Add future prospects 40%
Loss of future income (income X Rs.2,13,484/-
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Future medical expenses Rs. 40,000/-
Expense on special diet Rs. 25,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 25,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 36,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 50,000+ Rs. 35,000/- =
Suffering Rs. 85,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 6,60,467/-
57. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 06.06.2024 till realization.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:09
+0530MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 24 of 40
DISBURSEMENT
58. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month.
59. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018
& 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors.
Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(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 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.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:14
+0530MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 25 of 40
(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.”
60. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on 18
March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held 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
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKAMACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors.SINGLA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:20:18 +0530
Page 26 of 40
account with any 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.”
61. 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 High Court shall be
complied with. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the
respondent no. 2 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c. no.
42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central,
IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
62. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 7,77,071/- (Rupees
Seven Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Seventy One only), Rs.
2,77,071/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand Seventy One
only) be released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank
account maintained at State Bank of India, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi bearing
no. 43200879210, IFSC SBIN0000745, CIF no. 91837993158.
63. The balance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs
only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in his name in MACAD
account of equal amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand
only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 months respectively, with
cumulative interest, in terms of the directions contained in FAO No.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:20:22 +0530
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 27 of 40
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 a nationalized bank situated near the
place of his residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
64. Further, it is directed that if the amount is being disbursed
to the petitioner in his savings bank accounts, he shall not avail any
loan/advance facility on the FDRs without the permission of this
Tribunal. Further, he shall not encash the FDRs before their maturity
without the permission of this Tribunal.
65. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 08.03.2024
Name of the Injured: Mohd Irshad
Age of the Injured: Presently 40 years
Occupation of the Injured: Salesman
Income of the Injured: Rs. 21,215/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi
Period of Hospitalization: 23.03.2024 to 31.03.2024
Whether any permanent: Yes
disability? Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:27
+0530
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 28 of 40
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 28,693/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 36,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 25,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs.21,215/-
(vi) Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 1,27,290/-
(vii) Add future prospects 40%
viii) Future Medical Expenses Rs. 40,000/-
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 50,000+ Rs. 35,000/- =
physical shock
Rs. 85,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 30,000/-
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 8% permanent disability
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil
expectation of life span on
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. 2026.05.23
15:20:32
+0530 Page 29 of 40
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 4%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs.2,13,484/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 6,60,467/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous –
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 1,16,604.09 (rounded off to Rs.
award w.e.f. 06.06.2024 till 1,16,604/-)
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 7,77,071/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 62 & 63
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs. 5,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 62 & 63
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 03.07.2026
award
LIABILITY:
66. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3. It is
argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the respondent
no.1 was carrying a license to drive vehicles of NT category i.e. non-
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 30 of 40
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:37
+0530
transport vehicle. However, an ambulance falls under the category of a
transport vehicle under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Hence, it is
submitted that by virtue of the amendment in Section 150 MV Act, as
the respondent no. 1 was not carrying a valid driving license at the time
of the accident, the respondent no. 3 insurance company is entitled to
take the defence under Section 150 (2)(a)(ii) MV Act. It is submitted
that prior to the Amendment of April, 2022, where any of the defences
was available to the company as stipulated under the Act, the insurance
company had the liability to pay the compensation amount and was
entitled to recover the same from the driver/owner. Now, the provision
of pay and recover has been deleted by the introduction of the
Amendment Act, meaning thereby that the defences, as provided in the
Act, if proved on record by the insurance company, then the insurance
company shall not be liable to pay the compensation amount to the
petitioners.
67. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
that the present case is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a
beneficial legislation.
68. Record perused.
69. It is a matter of record that by virtue of the Amendment Act
of 2022, the principle of pay and recover has been removed by the
Parliament. Our own Hon’ble High Court has taken a similar view in
Go Digit General Insurance Co. v. Mohd Javed MAC. App 416/2025
decided on 09.07.2025, in a similar matter, wherein it has observed that:
Digitally
signed byMACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 31 of 40
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:42
+0530
“So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that
appears to be an inadvertent error by the Ld. Trial Court
since, after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act
w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery
rights is no longer available in the statute book.”
70. However, the said observations were given by the Hon’ble
High Court in a passing reference and is not a ratio decidendi. However,
in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Arti Devi And
Others 2025:AHC:14110 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahbad on 31 January, 2025, in a similar set of circumstances, it was
observed that:
“21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section
149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub-Section (4) of
Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully
examined, the words “shall, as respects such liabilities as are
required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 147, be of no effect” would only mean
that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4),
either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be
well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the
insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be
absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the
claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be
absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner’s risk. Such
indemnification will still continue to remain alive and the
insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through
indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover
from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability shall
have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In such an
event, there would be no financial loss to the insurer as it
would be compensated through recovery from the owner. The
aforesaid provisions are expressly to give defence to the
insurer and have to be read to that extent only and not to
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed byMACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 32 of 40
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:20:46 +0530
interpret as if the liability to indemnify stands washed away.
It therefore follows that even if the proviso to sub-Section (4)
would not have been there before the amendment, the
indemnification concept would have still remained alive and
operative and, hence, mere omission of the proviso by the
Amendment Act of 2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case,
liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the Insurance
Company, there would be no effect of providing grounds for
defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act prior to
amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after
amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The
reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said
provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the
Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e,
holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have
an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the
situation where award is against the owner and insurer is
made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then
recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as
required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has
now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a
case where premium is not received by the Insurance
Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid
passing of award against it and, in that event also, award
would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-
payment of premium is significant after amendment and has
been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a
third party risk is covered under the policy which is a contract
and premium qua third party risk is received by the insurer in
relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues to subsist
to cover third party risk so long the premium is received and
non-payment thereof would absolve the Insurance Company
from its liability of an award being passed against it.
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:51
+0530MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 33 of 40
clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was
never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards
compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions.
Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious
help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional
and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread
winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in
the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to
replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified
provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident
victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement
of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or
indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer’s liability to pay
compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case
of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar
grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the
purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was
clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident
victims and their dependents and not to create a situation
where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an
award is declared in their favour.
37. From the over all discussion made above, it is crystal
clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either
before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by
Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in
case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the
interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso
would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at the
first instance would be too wild a proposition and would
result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out
of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the
claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount of
compensation through execution proceedings in one way or
the other, searching the owner through the process of Court.
In such an event, the claimants would face further harassment
and nobody knows that despite a money decree in the nature
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:20:55MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. +0530
Page 34 of 40
of an award being there in their favour, as to whether the
claimants would ever be able to get the compensation
realized through recovery proceedings directly from the
owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent becomes clear and
there is nothing to support the insurer’s arguments flowing
from interpretation of Statute or Causus Omissus. The
contention advanced on behalf of insurer stands discarded.
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of proviso
attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), neither takes
away the liability of the insurer to pay the claimants nor its
right to recover the said amount from the owner. The law to
this effect remains intact and unaffected by Amendment Act,
2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue to indemnify the
owner’s risk in relation to accidents taking place after
01.04.2022 and “PAY & RECOVER” principle will still
continue to govern the field advancing social object of the
Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of law laid
down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company
Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has
not lost its significance and binding effect despite omission of
proviso. Held accordingly. “
71. Hence, in view of the above mentioned observations,
it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner and then the respondent no.3 shall be
entitled to recover the said amount from the respondents no. 1 & 2.
Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2026.05.23
15:21:00 +0530
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 35 of 40
RELIEF:
72. The respondent no.3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
6,60,467/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Sixty
Seven only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR
i.e. 06.06.2024 till realization with the bank account of this Tribunal at
SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within 30 days under intimation to the
claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest
@ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance
placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
73. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
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. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:21:04
Page 36 of 40
+0530
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 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)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
03.07.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil 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).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 23rd May, 2026
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.23
15:21:08
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 37 of 40
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 08.03.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 11.03.2024
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
06.06.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
27.04.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 27.04.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 27.04.2024
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
06.06.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
Detail Accident Report 06.06.2024
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 06.06.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors.
Date:
2026.05.23
15:21:13
+0530
Page 38 of 40
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 23.05.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 06.06.2024
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
09.01.2026
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA
Date:
2026.05.23
Page 39 of 40
15:21:18
+0530
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time Yes. The Financial Statement of the
of passing of the Award to injured/petitioner was recorded on
ascertain his/their financial 09.01.2026.
condition?
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.05.23
15:21:22
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
23.05.2026
MACT No.416/2024 Mohd. Irshad Vs. Pramod Kumar and Ors. Page 40 of 40
