Delhi District Court
Anuj Kumar vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani And Others on 4 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, PRESIDING
OFFICER : MACT : SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS :
NEW DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT No. : 451/2022
CNR No. DLST01-010100-2022
Anuj Kumar,
S/o Sh. Tilak Singh,
R/o H. No. D 60, Gali No. 3,
Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi - 110062.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Magbool Basha Abdulkani,
S/o Sh. Abdulkani,
R/o 8, Car Street, Malaiyandivaram,
Sankari, District Salem,
Tamilnadu.
...Driver
2. Priya S,
W/o Sh. Muthuvel,
R/o H. No. 72/2B, Pachapaliyur,
Arasiramani Alathur, PO Sankari,
TK Salem, District Salem,
Tamilnadu.
...Owner
3. M/S Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.,
having office at - Rider House, First Floor,
Plot No. 136, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana.
...Insurance Company
...Respondents
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.1 of 30
Date of Institution : 19.11.2022
Date of reserving of judgment/order : 06.06.2026
Date of pronouncement : 04.07.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 31.05.2022
2. Date of filing of Form-I - N.A.
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to N.A.
the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III N.A.
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV N.A.
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA N.A.
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-
Detailed Accident Report N.A.
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N.A.
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the N.A
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance N.A.
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the
petition/DAR?
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.2 of 30
12. Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N.A.
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the N.A.
petitioner(s) to the offer of the
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 04.07.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) N.A.
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which -
petitioner(s) was/were
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit
card to the petitioner(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the Pan Card and Adhar Card
petitioner(s) produced the were produced at the time of
passbook of their savings recording of the financial
bank account near the place statement on 22.01.2026 and
of their residence along-with petitioner stated that he
the endorsement, PAN Card would get a bank account
and Adhaar Card? opened in a nationalized
bank near his place of
residence shortly.
18. Permanent Residential R/o H. No. D 60, Gali No. 3,
Address of the petitioner(s). Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi - 110062.
19. Whether the petitioner(s)
savings bank account(s) is/are -
near his/her/their place of
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.3 of 30
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s)
was/were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide the present judgment/award, this Tribunal shall
decide the claim petition filed by the petitioner/injured under
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as MV Act).
Case Set Forth By the Petitioner
(2) As per the averments in the claim petition, on
31.05.2022 at about 8.50 am, the petitioner was going from Vikas
Nagar, Panipat to Guhana Road Phase – 3 by motorcycle bearing
no. UP-34-J-6121. When petitioner reached Canal near NFL
Naka, suddenly a Truck bearing no. TN-52-L-7651 (hereinafter
referred to as the offending vehicle) came which was being
driven by respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner. The
petitioner tried to save himself but there was no space left to
move away due to which petitioner came under wheel of the
truck and his right hand got crushed.
(3) It is contended that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no. 1.
(4) The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.
50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest from
the respondents driver of the offending vehicle, its owner and the
concerned insurance company.
Miscellaneous Proceedings
(5) Notices of the petition were issued to all the
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.4 of 30
respondents. The respondent insurance company put in
appearance and filed its written statement. The respondent no. 1
Magbool Basha Abdulkani (driver) and respondent no. 2 Priya S
(owner) were served but they did not choose to appear in the
court and were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2024.
Case Set Forth By the Respondent No. 3 Insurance
Company
(6) In the WS filed by the respondent no. 3 insurance
company it has taken preliminary objections. Inter-alia it is
averred that as per the documents on record, the accident seemed
to have occurred due to negligence of the petitioner who was
driving the motorcycle bearing no. UP-34-J-6121 and the petition
was bad for non joinder of the necessary parties i.e. owner and
insurer of the motorcycle.
(7) In the reply on merits, the averments of the claim
petition have been denied although the fact that the offending
vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 at the time of the
accident is admitted. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
Framing of Issues
(8) After completion of the pleadings on 02.07.2024,
the following issues were framed in the present case –
(i) Whether Anuj Kumar sustained injuries in the road
accident on 31.05.2022 at about 8.50 AM near NFL Naka under
PS Model Town, District Panipat Haryana due to rash and
negligent driving of Truck bearing no. TN-52-L-7651 being
driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and
insured with respondent no. 3 (M/S Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Ltd.) ? OPP
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.5 of 30
(ii) To what amount of compensation the petitioner is
entitled and from whom ? OPP
(iii) Relief.
(9) The matter was listed for evidence before the
Learned (Ld) Local Commissioner (LC).
Evidence Adduced By The Petitioner
(10) The petitioner Sh. Anuj Kumar examined himself as
PW-1 who tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and
relied upon the following documents –
(a) Photocopy of Adhar Card of PW-1 – Ex.PW1/1.
(b) Photocopy of Pan Card of PW-1 – Ex.PW1/2.
(c) Photocopy of driving license – Ex.PW1/3.
(d) FIR, chargesheet and other criminal record –
Ex.PW1/4 (colly) (pages 15 – 56).
(e) Treatment record and bills – Ex.PW1/5 (colly)
(pages 57-81).
(f) Disability certificate of PW-1 – Ex.PW1/6.
(g) Copy of educational qualification certificates –
Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
(11) PW1 was duly cross examined by Ld. counsel for
the respondent insurance company.
(12) No other witness was examined by the petitioner
and PE was closed on 27.03.2025 as per report of Ld. LC.
(13) The respondent insurance company did not seek to
lead any evidence and Respondent’s Evidence was closed on
20.01.2026.
(14) Report regarding conclusion of the evidence was
filed by Ld. LC.
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.6 of 30
Final Arguments
(15) Thereafter final arguments were advanced by Ld.
counsel for the parties.
(16) Written submissions were filed on behalf of
petitioners.
(17) Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied on judgments
i.e. Sh. Dinesh Kumar J @ Danish J Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd & Ors Civil Appeal No. 22966 of 2017 decided on
15.12.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Saleem Ahmad
Vs Jaipal & Ors MAC. APP. 113/2020 decided by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court on 29.11.2024 (neutral citation 2024: DHC: 9760).
Ld. counsel for the respondent insurance company relied on the
judgments i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Akram Hussain & Ors MAC. APP. 306/2009 decided by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court on 18.07.2011 and Rehmani Begum & Ors Vs
Krishan Pal & Ors MAC APP 954/2017 & CM APPL.
39162/2017 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 18.01.2019
as well as order dated 01.05.2019 passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the SLP titled Rehmani Begum & Ors Vs Krishan Pal &
Ors as per which the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High
Court was affirmed.
(18) At the stage of clarifications, the certifies copies of
the site plan and mechanical inspection reports were filed by Ld.
counsel for the petitioner.
(19) I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. counsel
for the parties and perused the record including the written
submissions filed and judgments cited.
Issue no. 1
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.7 of 30
Whether Anuj Kumar sustained injuries in the road
accident on 31.05.2022 at about 8.50 AM near NFL Naka under
PS Model Town, District Panipat Haryana due to rash and
negligent driving of Truck bearing no. TN-52-L-7651 being
driven by respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and
insured with respondent no. 3 (M/S Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Ltd.) ? OPP
(20) At the outset, it would be insightful to refer to the
principles governing cases pertaining to Motor Accident Claims
as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time.
(21) In Anita Sharma & Ors Vs The New India
Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr AIR 2021 Supreme Court 302, it
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that strict principles of
evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are
inapplicable in MACT claim cases. It was stressed that the
standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of
probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
(22) Further, in Vimla Devi & Ors Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors 1 (2019) 2 SCC 186, the Hon’ble Apex
Court reiterated that Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is enacted to give
solace to the victims of motor vehicle accidents and relieve them
from strict compliance provided in law which are otherwise
applicable to suits and other proceedings.
(23) As per the settled law, the burden of proof in MACT
matters is even lesser than that required to be discharged in civil
matters.
(24) The petitioner/PW-1 deposed vide his affidavit of
evidence Ex.PW1/A that the offending vehicle came from Jatal
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.8 of 30
road side being driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and
negligent manner on the fateful date and time and suddenly took
a turn towards Guhana Road side and hit the motorcycle of the
petitioner due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and
his right hand got crushed under the rear wheel of the truck.
(25) In his cross-examination, the petitioner/PW-1
maintained his stance denying the suggestion put by Ld. counsel
for the insurance company that the accident was caused entirely
due to his own negligence and also denying the suggestion that
there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle.
(26) The respondents no. 1 and 2 did not bother to appear
and defend the case so there is no contest from their side to the
allegations made in the claim petition and supported by the
petitioner during evidence through the averments on oath vide his
affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A.
(27) The respondent no. 1 was the best witness to explain
the circumstances surrounding the accident but he chose to steer
clear of the witness box.
(28) In the case of the Chola Mandalam M. S. General
Insurance Company Ltd Vs Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310 , it
was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that if the driver of the
offending vehicle does not enter the witness box, an adverse
inference can be drawn against him. In the instant case, as
already noted above, the driver having chosen to shy away from
the witness box, an adverse inference is drawn against him and
against the owner of the alleged offending vehicle as well, who
also did not bother to appear in the court.
(29) Furthermore, it was held in Mangla Ram Vs
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.9 of 30
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 5 SCC 656 that filing
of the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle
prima facie points towards the complicity in driving the vehicle
negligently and rashly and the subsequent acquittal of the
accused may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability
required in motor vehicle accident cases.
(30) The respondents have not pleaded, let alone proved
that there was any enmity or animosity harboured by either the
petitioners or the I.O. concerned against the respondent no. 1
which could constitute a motive for alleged false implication of
the respondent no. 1. As per the averments in the claim petition
which have gone completely unrebutted qua the respondents no.1
and 2, the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner and due
to the impact the petitioner fell on the road and his right hand
was crushed under the wheel of the truck. The principle of res
ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) is invoked in the facts
and circumstances of the case and a presumption of negligence is
raised against the respondent no.1. It was for the respondent no. 1
to rebut this presumption but he has miserably failed to do so.
(31) An argument raised by Ld. counsel for the insurance
company was that admittedly the driving license of the
petitioner/PW-1 was valid for driving a four wheeler (LMV) only
and not for driving a two wheeler. He argued that as per the
admitted position, the petitioner was driving a motorcycle at the
time of the accident for which the petitioner did not have a valid
driving license. It was the contention of Ld. counsel for the
insurance company that the initial onus was on the petitioner to
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.10 of 30
show that he was permitted to drive a motorcycle on the road
with a valid driving license and only then the question of
negligence on the part of the respondent driver would arise. He
relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Rehmani Begum (supra) which was affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP No. 10293/2019. He also relied on the
judgment of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs
Akram Hussain & Ors (supra) which was a case where the driver
of the offending vehicle was having a driving license for driving
light motor vehicle but at the time of the accident he was driving
a motorcycle. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in said case,
observing that it could not assumed that every person who was
competent to drive LMV would be skilled in driving a two
wheeler as well, arrived at the conclusion that the respondent
driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the
time of the accident.
(32) On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the petitioner
relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Saleem Ahmad Vs Jaipal & Ors (supra) wherein it was a case
where the injured was not having a valid driving license and the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that while the injured may
be liable to be prosecuted under the penal provisions of the MV
Act for not having a valid driver’s license but the same did not
ipso facto attribute sole or contributory negligence in driving the
motorcycle.
(33) Pertinently the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the
afore-cited judgment of Saleem Ahmad Vs Jaipal & Ors (supra)
noted the judgments of Rehmani Begum (supra) which were
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.11 of 30
relied on by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition and
observed that however, the Apex Court in Saraswati Palariya &
Ors Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors Civil
Appeal No. 9114/2018 had held that merely because a vehicle
was being driven by the deceased without a driving license it
would not ipso facto establish negligence. The Hon’ble Delhi
High Court further observed that the evidence of the appellant
(injured) explained that the accident was caused due to sole
negligence of the respondent driver of the offending vehicle and
the respondents including the driver had not challenged the
testimony of the injured.
(34) The judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Saleem Ahmad Vs Jaipal & Ors (supra) applies on all fours to the
present factual matrix since in the present case also the
petitioner/PW-1 unequivocally deposed that the accident
occurred due to negligence on the part of the respondent no. 1
driver only and the respondent no. 1 driver never came forward
with his version. No successfully challenge to the testimony of
the petitioner on the aspect of mode and manner of the accident
could be raised by the contesting respondent. The circumstances
as explained by the injured do not spell any circumstance which
could attribute negligence to the injured, as was the case in
Saleem Ahmad (supra) as well. In such circumstances, there is no
merit in the argument of the respondent insurance company on
the score of absence of valid driving license of the petitioner.
(35) Ld. counsel for the respondent insurance company
next raised the contention that as per the pleadings and criminal
case record including site plan, it appeared to be a case of head
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.12 of 30
on collision and so atleast contributory negligence should be
attributed to the petitioner.
(36) It is well settled that contributory negligence is
required to be established by way of cogent evidence. As per the
petitioner, the offending vehicle came from Jatal Road side and
suddenly took a turn towards Guhana Road and hit his
motorcycle. There is no rebuttal to the aforesaid factual matrix
from the respondent no. 1 driver. The petitioner/PW-1 withstood
the test of cross-examination denying any negligence on his part.
The testimony of the petitioner is credible and inspires
confidence. No other version of the accident has been put forth
on record. No positive evidence has been adduced by the
contesting respondents to rebut the version of the petitioner in the
form of any eye witness account, CCTV footage or otherwise. In
such circumstances, no contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioner is established and the plea of the respondent insurance
company in this regard thus fails.
(37) The petitioner has established on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took
place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle
bearing no. TN-52-L-7651 which was being driven by the
respondent no. 1, owned by respondent no. 2 and insured by the
respondent no. 3 at the relevant time.
(38) Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner.
Issue no. 2
To what amount of compensation the petitioner is
entitled and from whom ? OPP
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.13 of 30
(39) Certain principles for delineating just compensation
were enumerated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj
Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors (2011) 1 SCC 343 as follows –
“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 petitioner 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.
(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 petitioner, that compensation will be granted
under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss
of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.14 of 30
marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 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 petitioner and the
effect thereof on the future life of the petitioner.”
(40) I shall now proceed to determine the quantum of
compensation to which the petitioner is entitled under separate
heads in a stepwise manner.
Determination of Age of Petitioner and Multiplier .
(41) The age of the petitioner is an essential factor for
ascertaining the just compensation applicable under different
heads. As per the Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR), Pan Card
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) and High School Examination Certificate [part
of Ex.PW1/7 colly (OSR)], the date of birth of the petitioner is
08.07.1992. No question or suggestion to doubt the veracity or
genuineness of the documents pertaining to age proof was raised
by the respondent insurance company during the evidence
proceedings. The accident took place on 31.05.2022. The
petitioner was around 29 years of age at the time of the accident.
As the petitioner falls in the age bracket of 26-30 years, the
multiplier applicable in the instant case as per Sarla Verma
(supra) is 17.
Determination of Educational Qualification of the
Petitioner
(42) The petitioner exhibited his educational documents
as Ex.PW1/7 (colly) as per which the petitioner has studied upto
class XII. A general suggestion was put to the petitioner/PW-1
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.15 of 30
that Ex.PW1/7 (colly) documents were forged and fabricated
which was denied by the petitioner. The petitioner admitted that
he took 7 years to pass class XII after he passed class X however,
that in itself does not lead to any presumption of forgery and
fabrication of the documents. A party alleging forgery is required
to establish the same by way of positive evidence but no
evidence was led by the respondent insurance company in this
regard. Hence, no suspicion regarding the genuineness of the
educational documents has been successfully raised.
Determination of income of petitioner
(43) The petitioner/PW-1 claimed that he was doing
embroidery work prior to the accident and earning Rs.30,000/-
per month. No document regarding the income /salary of the
petitioner has been adduced in evidence. The petitioner/PW-1
admitted in his cross-examination that he had not filed any
document pertaining to his income or avocation. Although the
petitioner/PW-1 denied that he was not doing any embroidery
work however he admitted that he had not filed any document to
show that he was trained in doing embroidery work.
(44) In such circumstances, in absence of any proof
regarding the income/salary of the petitioner and in view of the
fact that no document regarding him being specially
skilled/trained to do embroidery work has been adduced in
evidence, his income is to be presumed to be as per the Minimum
Wages prescribed for matriculate but not graduate person by the
Government of Haryana during the relevant period when the
accident took place. The minimum wage as prescribed by
Government of Haryana are applicable in the present case as a
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.16 of 30
perusal of the FIR, certified copy of which is on record reveals
that the petitioner was residing and working for gains in Panipat,
Haryana at the time of the accident and the accident itself also
took place in Panipat, Haryana.
(45) The minimum wage applicable at the relevant time
as per notification dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Labour
Department Haryana for matriculate but not graduate, was
Rs.11,133.96/- per month. Thus, the established income of the
petitioner for the purpose of the present proceedings is to be
considered as Rs.11,133.96/- (rounded off to Rs.11,134/-).
Award towards medical expenses /treatment
(46) The petitioner/PW-1 exhibited the original medial
bills as Ex.PW1/5 colly. No question or suggestion to doubt the
genuineness of the bills was put to the petitioner during his cross-
examination. The veracity/authenticity of the bills Ex.PW1/5
colly being unchallenged the same can safely be relied upon. The
total of the bills comes to Rs.1753/-. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.1753/- is awarded to the petitioner towards medical
expenses/treatment.
Award qua conveyance
(47) An amount of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed under
this head. No bills qua conveyance have been filed by the
petitioner. However, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered 90% permanent disability some expenditure must
definitely have been incurred by the petitioner in traveling to and
fro the hospital therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded
towards conveyance.
Award qua attendant charges
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.17 of 30
(48) Although, the petitioner has not adduced any
evidence on record to show the expenses incurred by him
towards attendant charges however, it is settled that even if a
formal nursing attendant is not engaged, the services provided by
family members also have to be fairly compensated. In light of
the injury sustained by the petitioner an amount of Rs.15,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner towards attendant charges.
Award qua Special Diet
(49) There is no cogent evidence on record regarding the
expenses incurred by the petitioner upon special diet, however,
considering the nature of injuries sustained, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the petitioner must have spent some amount under
this head. Hence, compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards
expenses incurred on special diet.
Determination of loss of income during treatment
period
(50) The petitioner was hospitalized the same day post
the accident and discharged on 04.06.2022. As per the medical
documents on record, apparently the petitioner had to keep
visiting the hospital in relation to the injuries sustained in the
accident atleast till November 2022. The petitioner has not
averred in his affidavit of evidence that he was advised bed rest
by the doctors but he testified in his affidavit of evidence
Ex.PW1/A that due to the disability he has become permanently
unemployed.
(51) Considering the nature of injury sustained by the
petitioner, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner was
unable to resume work for 6 months post the accident. Thus, an
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.18 of 30
amount of Rs.66,804/- (i.e. 11,134 x 6) is awarded to the
petitioner for loss of income during the treatment period of six
months.
Award towards loss of amenities
(52) The petitioner has suffered permanent disability to
the extent of 90% in relation to his right lower limb. Considering
the nature of injuries sustained by him on account of which he
would be unable to enjoy the basic amenities of life as he could
have had he not sustained the injuries the petitioner is awarded an
amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life.
Award on account of Pain & Suffering and Mental
and Physical Shock
(53) The mental and physical loss cannot always be
arithmetically computed in terms of money. The object remains
to compensate in so far as money can compensate.
(54) In Nathu Lal Vs Sandeep Gulati & Ors MAC. APP.
770/2011 decided by Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 21.05.2012
it was held thus –
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot
be fixed on pain and suffering for all cases as it varies
from case to case. Judicial notice can be taken of the
fact that since the petitioner had got injuries/fracture
as aforesaid, he might have suffered acute pain and
sufferings owing to the said injuries. He might have
also consumed heavy dose of antibiotic etc. and also
might have remained without movements of his body
for a considerable period of time. In order to ascertain
the pain and sufferings compensation, I am guided by
the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case
Satya Narain Vs Jai Kishan, FAO No. 709/02, date ofAnuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.19 of 30
decision 02.02.2007, wherein it was held that :- “On
account of pain and suffering, suffice would it to note
that it is difficult to measure pain and suffering in
terms of a money value. However, compensation
which has to be paid must bear some objective co-
relation with the pain and suffering. The objective
facts relatable to pain and suffering would be :
(a) Nature of injury
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of treatment
(55) The petitioner has suffered 90% permanent physical
disability in the present case. It is a case of substantial permanent
disability which will likely have adverse impact on mental,
emotional and psychological health of the petitioner. There is no
methodology to quantify and measure the sufferings of the victim
in terms of money but the object would be to place the victim in
as near a position as he was before the accident. Hence, an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering
and mental and physical shock.
Award towards Disfiguration
(56) An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is claimed under this
head. There is no medical documentation on record to reflect that
disfiguration has occurred as a result of the accident hence grant
of award under this head is not warranted.
Determination of loss of future earnings
(57) As per the disability certificate, the petitioner
suffered 90% permanent disability in relation to his right lower
limb.
(58) The petitioner avers that he was doing embroidery
work at the time of the incident and due to the injury sustained inAnuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.20 of 30
the accident, he has become permanently unemployed. In his
cross examination ably conducted by Ld. counsel for the
insurance company, the petitioner/PW-1 candidly conceded that
he had not filed any medical record /certificate to show that he
was not in a position to work for gains at all presently and had
also not filed any document/evidence to show that he made any
attempt to ask for work.
(59) In order dated 09.03.2018 passed by Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors, the
test to determine functional disability was laid down as thus :-
6. Directions for assessment of functional disability by the
Claims Tribunal
“6.1. All injuries or permanent disability
arising from injuries do not result in loss of earning
capacity.
6.2. The percentage of permanent disability
with reference to the whole body of a person should
not be mechanically 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 percentage of loss of earning
capacity is the same as percentage of permanent
disability).
6.3. The doctor who treated an injured-
petitioner or who examined him subsequently to
assess the extent of his permanent disability can give
evidence of his medical opinion with regard to the
extent of permanent disability. However, the loss of
earning capacity is something to be assessed by the
Claims Tribunal with reference to the evidence in its
entirety.
6.4. 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.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the
permanent disability on the actual earning capacity
involves three steps:
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.21 of 30
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what
activities the petitioner 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).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his
avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The petitioner is totally disabled from
earning any kind of livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability,
the petitioner could still effectively carry on the
activities and functions, which he was earlier
carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented or restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but
could carry on some other or lesser scale of activities
and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood. ”
Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 3900/2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
further elucidated upon the concept of functional disability as
follows:
“9. As to how compensation, in case where permanent
disability of an injured affects his functional disability,
is to be assessed has been considered by this Court,
repeatedly. Reference can be made to the judgment of
this court in Mohan Soni vs Ram Avtar Tomar and
Others. In the aforesaid case the injured was working as
a cart puller. As a result of the accident, his left leg was
amputated. His permanent disability was assessed at
60%. The Tribunal assessed the compensation taking the
loss of earning at 50% on the theory that he can still do
some other work while sitting. The High Court did not
disturb the finding regarding loss of the income on
account of disability. This Court found that the Tribunal
was in error in taking the loss of earning at 50% as the
injured was 55 years of age and it may be difficult for
him to find a job at that stage. In fact, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged
with reference to the nature of the work being performed
by the person who suffered disability. The same injury
suffered by two different persons may affect themAnuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.22 of 30
indifferent ways. Loss of leg by a farmer or a rickshaw
puller may be end of the road as far as his earning
capacity is concerned. Whereas, in case of the persons
engaged in some kind of desk work in office, loss of leg
may have lesser effect. This Court enhanced the loss of
earning capacity from 50% to 90%.”
(61) Applying the aforesaid principles to the case at
hand, taking the averment of the petitioner that he was doing
embroidery work at the time at face value, the physical disability
of 90% would indeed create serious hardship in the working of
the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner has not led any
evidence or filed any medical documentation to show that he is
not a position to work for gain at all. On a conspectus of the facts
established on the record the functional disability of the
petitioner is thus assessed to be 50% in relation to his earning
capacity.
Determination of Percentage of Future Prospects
Applicable.
(62) In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs Naresh Kumar
(2022) 13 SCC 790, it was held that future prospects (as laid
down in the celebrated judgment of National Insurance Company
Ltd Vs Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16 SCC 680 shall be payable
not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability.
As the petitioner was in the age group of 26-30 years at the time
of accident and employed in a non-permanent job, the percentage
of future prospects applicable would be 40% .
Assessment of Enhanced Monthly Income
(63) The income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.11,134/-
and an addition of 40% needs to be made towards future
prospects. Accordingly, the enhanced monthly income of the
petitioner is to be taken as Rs.15,587.6/- [Rs.11,134 + 40% of
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.23 of 30
11134 i.e. 4453.6 = Rs.15,587.6/-] rounded off to Rs.15,588/-.
Loss of earning capacity /loss of future earning
(64) The (enhanced) monthly income shall be taken as
Rs.15,588/-. The annual income would be 15,588 x 12. The
multiplier of 17 as per Sarla Verma (supra) is applicable. The
functional disability is assessed as 50%. Hence, the future
earnings work out to be Rs.15,89,976/- (15,588 x 12 x 17 x
50/100). Hence, an amount of Rs.15,89,976/- is awarded towards
loss of future earnings.
(65) Consequently, the compensation awarded to the
petitioner is tabulated hereunder –
S.No Heads of Compensation Amount
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.1753/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL
future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering and Mental Rs.1,00,000/-
and Physical Shock
4. Loss of income during Rs.66,804/-
treatment period
5. Loss of earning capacity/loss Rs.15,89,976/-
of future earning
6. Disfiguration NIL
7. Special diet Rs.15,000/-
8. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/-
9. Conveyance Rs.15,000/-
10. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/-
Total Rs.18,23,533/-
Apportionment of Liability
(66) The respondent no. 3 insurance company has not
raised any statutory defence hence being the insurer of the
offending vehicle at the time of the accident, it is contractually
liable to make the payment of the award amount. Accordingly,
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.24 of 30
the respondent no. 3 insurance company is held solely liable to
make the payment of the award amount.
Relief –
(67) Consequent to the foregoing discussion an amount
of Rs.18,23,533/- is awarded to the petitioner with simple interest
@9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till actual
realization which shall be payable by the respondent no. 3
insurance company.
(68) In case the interest of petitioner was stopped or
excluded during the present enquiry proceedings, same is liable
to be adjusted from the total interest calculated on the Award
amount. Similarly, amount awarded and released as interim
award if any, during pendency of the case, be deducted from the
total compensation amount.
(69) Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as “Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. ” has
formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made
effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Saket
District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi is directed to
disburse the amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
(70) Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.3/insurance
company is directed to deposit the award amount of
Rs.18,23,533/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand
Five Hundred Thirty Three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.
from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization as
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.25 of 30
stated herein above with State Bank of India, Saket District
Court Branch, New Delhi in the MACT SOUTH SAKET
COURT A/c 42706751873 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR
code 110002342 in favour the
petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/petitioner(s) as stated herein above
under intimation to the Tribunal, petitioner and counsel for
petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of the passing
of the award. In case even after lapse of 90 days from today, the
respondent no.3 fails to deposit this compensation/award amount
with interest, in that event, following the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd VS Kashmiri
Lal (2007) ACJ 688, the same shall be recovered by attaching the
bank account of respondent no. 3 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
(71) Out of the total award amount, Manager, State Bank
of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi is directed to
release/disburse the amount of Rs.8,23,533/- (Rupees Eight
Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Three only)
immediately to the injured/petitioner in his bank account and the
balance amount of Rs.10 lakhs shall be put in 100 monthly fixed
deposits in his name in MACAD account of equal amount of
Rs.10,000/- each for a period of 01 month to 100 months
respectively with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 and
08.01.2021. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall automatically
be transferred in the savings account of the petitioner maintained
in a nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence
without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
(72) It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.26 of 30
petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such
saving account in the bank near his residence with endorsement
of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been
issued or if it has been issued the said ATM card has been
withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of
this Tribunal.
(73) The following conditions shall be adhered to by
State Bank of India, Saket District Court Branch, New Delhi with
respect to the fixed deposits : –
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the
savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the petitioner(s)
i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the petitioner(s) shall be an
individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) 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 petitioner(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the
petitioner (s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to petitioner(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
card (s) freeze the account of the petitioner(s) so that no debit card
be issued in respect of the account of the petitioner(s) from any
other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
petitioner(s) 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 petitioner(s) shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for
compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with
the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the
passbook(s) of the petitioner(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
(74) Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the awardAnuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.27 of 30
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS
immediately.
(75) A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.
(76) Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of award to Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)].
(77) Ahlmad is also directed to e-mail an authenticated
copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as
“Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of
India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-email
an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, State
Bank of India, Saket District Court Complex Branch, New Delhi
for information.
(78) File be consigned to record room after necessary
compliance. Separate file be prepared for compliance and be put
up on 05.10.2026.
Digitally
signed by
Anjani
Anjani mahajan
Announced in the open Court mahajan Date:
2026.07.04
today i.e. 04th of July, 2026 16:32:32
+0530(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
04.07.2026Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.28 of 30
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 04.08.2022
2. Name of the injured : Anuj Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 29 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Presently unemployed
5. Income of the injured : Nil
6. Nature of injury : Grievous injury
7. Medical treatment taken : Yes
8. Period of Hospitalization : 4 days
9. Whether any permanent disability ?
If yes, give details : 90 % permanent physical
impairment in relation to
his right lower limb
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.1753/-
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.15,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.15,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.15,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.15,89,976/-
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.66,804/-
(vii) Any other loss which NIL
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for mental Rs.1,00,000/-
and physical shock and
Pain and Suffering
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Dis-figuration NIL
(iv) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(v) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.29 of 30
disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and
unhappiness in future life
etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability 90 % permanent physical
assessed and nature of impairment in relation to his
disability as permanent right lower limb
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss –
of expectation of life
span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of –
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income -
and earning capacity
14. TOTAL Rs.18,23,533/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the @9% per annum
date of award
17. Total amount including to be calculated @ 9% per
interest annum
18. Award amount released Rs.8,23,533/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.10,00,000/-
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
petitioner (s).
21. Next date for compliance 05.10.2026
of the award.
Digitally
signed by
Anjani
Anjani mahajan
mahajan Date:
2026.07.04
16:32:42
+0530
(ANJANI MAHAJAN)
Presiding Officer : MACT (S)
Saket Courts : New Delhi
04.07.2026
Anuj Kumar Vs Magbool Basha Abdulkani & Ors
MACT No. 451/2022 Page No.30 of 30
