Delhi District Court
Anil Paswan vs Dharmender Rawat on 2 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 336/2022
CNR No.DLWT010038132022
Sh. Anil Paswan
S/o Sh. Shekhu Paswan
R/o Ward No.2, Bhansi, Post Office Kumharson,
District Begusarai Bihar.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Dharmender Rawat (Driver)
S/o Sh. Ram Karan Rawat
R/o Village & Post Office Paniyala, Tehsil Kothputli,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan
(Driver of vehicle no. RJ32GB7468, TATA 407)
2. Leela Ram (Owner)
S/o Sh. Sayar
R/o Badi Poli, Village Sunderpura,
Tehsil Kothputli, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
(Owner of vehicle no. RJ32GB7468 TATA 407)
3. TATA AIG Insurance Company (Insurer)
F-3, Shreeji Towers, C-99, First Floor,
Subash Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan-302001
(Insurer of vehicle no. RJ32GB7468 TATA 407)
.....Respondents
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.1 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:08 +0530
Date of Institution : 25.04.2022
Date of pronouncement : 02.07.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 03.03.2020
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 25.04.2022
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II --
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III --
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV --
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 25.04.2022
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA --
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 25.04.2022
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay Accident took place on
or deficiency on the part of 03.03.2020 and the DAR
the Investigating Officer? If was filed on 25.04.2022
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated WS filed by respondent no.
Officer of the Insurance 3 on 02.08.2022
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay -
or deficiency on the part of
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.2 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:12 +0530
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the this matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 02.07.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 25.04.2022
claimant(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 claimant(s) and
make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 02.09.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Ward No.2, Bhansi, Post
Address of the claimant(s). Office Kumharson,
District Begusarai Bihar
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.3 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:14 +0530
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
1.1 The present DAR was filed on 25.04.2022 by
Investigating Officer (IO).
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated
03.03.2020 which occurred at about 5:00 AM at near Punjabi
Bagh underpass, Rohtak Road, New Delhi falling within the
jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh in which one Sh. Anil Paswan
son of Sh. Shekhu Paswan (hereinafter referred as "petitioner")
sustained grievous injuries. FIR No. 166/2020 under Section
279/337 IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh.
1.3 Subsequently, a claim petition u/s 166 & 140 MV
Act, 1988 was filed by the petitioner on 02.08.2022.
BRIEF FACTS :-
2.1 Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are:-
2.2 The petitioner was working as Helper on the Truck
(TATA 407) bearing registration No. RJ32GB7468 (hereinafter
referred as “Offending Vehicle), at Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059. On 03.03.2020 at around 4:00 AM, after
loading building material/dust in the offending vehicle from Tikri
Border, they started their journey towards Delhi. The offending
vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 and petitioner was
sitting in the cabin of the offending vehicle on the conductor side.
The respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle in rash
and negligent manner and petitioner warned the respondent no.1
regarding his rash and negligent driving and asked him to drive
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.4 of 29 signed by
Digitally
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:16 +0530
carefully but he did not pay any heed to the same. At about 4:30
AM when they reached near Punjabi Bagh Metro Station
underpass Rohtak Road towards Jhakira, the respondent no.1 hit
one stationary truck bearing registration no. HR38S5240. The
said stationary truck had a punctured tyre and was on a jack with
indicator and parking lights switched on. Due to the collision,
the offending vehicle was badly damaged and the petitioner got
stuck in its cabin and sustained multiple grievous injuries. After
the accident, the petitioner was taken to Maharaja Agrasen
Hospital where he remained admitted till 21.03.2020. Due to
Covid 19 pandemic, he was discharged by hospital on 21.03.2020
without complete treatment. Thereafter, he took further private
treatment from Ortho Care Hospital, Najafgarh, Delhi and also at
Advanced Orthopedic and Spine Centre, Begusarai, Bihar. FIR
No.116/2020 was registered on 03.03.2020 U/s 279/337 IPC. In
the final report annexed with the DAR, respondent no.1 was
charged with the offences U/s 279/338 IPC .
2.3 The petitioner was 35 years of age at the time of
accident and was working as Helper and used to earn Rs.15,000/-
per month. The incident happened solely due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.01. It is averred that the
respondent no.01 being driver, respondent no.02 being owner and
respondent no.03 being the insurer of offending vehicle are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.01 & 02.
3.1 No WS was filed on behalf of respondent no.1 & 2.
REPLY OF RESPONDENT NO.3
3.2 Respondent no.03 filed the reply wherein it is
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.5 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:18 +0530
admitted that the vehicle bearing No. RJ32GB7468 (TATA 404)
was insured with it vide policy No. 01583910790100 for the
period 14.06.2019 to 13.06.2020. As no valid permit has been
filed with the DAR, therefore, the offending vehicle was not
having a valid permit and respondent no.2 was plying the
insured vehicle in violation of Section 66 of M.V. Act. The
terms and conditions of the insurance policy have been violated
by respondent no. 2 and hence, the insurance company is not
liable to indemnify the insured.
ISSUES
4. After completion of pleadings, on 06.09.2022, Ld.
Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: –
1. Whether the injured Anil Paswan sustained
injuries in the accident that took place on
03.03.2020 at about 5:00 AM due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. RJ-32-
GB-7468 by respondent no.1 Sh. Dharmender
Rawat, being owned by the respondent no.2 Sh.
Leela Ram and insured with the respondent
no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if so, at what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 to
establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon photocopy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B,
photocopy of MLC and summary dated 03.03.2020 as
Ex.PW1/C, photocopies of medicines bills, dressing charges etc.
as Ex.PW1/D and copy of discharge summary as Ex.PW1/E in
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.6 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:20 +0530
his evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and discharged.
5.2 No evidence was led by the respondents.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
6.1 It was argued by Ld. counsel for petitioner that the
petitioner has proved that the accident happened due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no. 1. He
further submitted that the petitioner was around 33 years of age at
the time of accident and was working as Helper in Delhi and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of accident but has now
been rendered incapable due to his permanent disability in the
right lower limbs. It was argued that despite passage of long time,
the petitioner is still earning the same income as he used to at the
time of the accident. It was submitted that keeping in view the
same, the award may be passed as per his entitlement.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.
1&2
6.2 No arguments were advanced on behalf of
respondent no. 1 & 2.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.
&3
6.3 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3
that the petitioner is only entitled to reimbursement of the medical
expenses of which the original medical bills have been filed. It
was further argued that the petitioner has not proved his
employment and, therefore, his income is to be calculated as per
the applicable minimum wages prevailing in the State of Bihar.
The counsel further argued that the earning capacity of the
petitioner has not been effected due to his disability as admittedly
the petitioner is still earning the same amount as he used to at the
time of the accident. It was submitted that considering the above,
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.7 of 29 Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06 17:12:23 +0530
the award may be passed as per the settled principles of law.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
7.1 ISSUE NO.1
1. Whether the injured Anil Paswan sustained
injuries in the accident that took place on
03.03.2020 at about 5:00 AM due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle bearing No. RJ-32-
GB-7468 by respondent no.1 Sh. Dharmender
Rawat, being owned by the respondent no.2 Sh.
Leela Ram and insured with the respondent
no.3? OPP.
7.2 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not
applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal
cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof
in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil
case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of
“Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and Ors.” (2009) 13 SC 530, “Parmeshwari Vs.
Amir Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal
No.1082 of 2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
7.3 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witness and entire
material available on record. This Tribunal has also given its
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for the parties.
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.8 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06 17:12:26
+0530
7.4 The petitioner has categorically deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the respondent no. 1 was driving the
offending vehicle rashly and negligently and continued to do so
despite his warnings. He deposed that due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the respondent no. 1
lost control on his truck and at a high speed hit a stationary truck
bearing no. HR38S5240 which was parked on the side of the
road. The petitioner has deposed that indicators and parking
lights of the stationary truck were switched on and the vehicle
was visible prior to the accident. The petitioner further deposed
that due to the impact, the offending vehicle was completely
damaged from the front and he suffered grievous injuries and was
stuck in the cabin of the truck. The petitioner in his evidence has
relied upon photocopy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B, photocopy of MLC
and summary dated 03.03.2020 as Ex.PW1/C, photocopies of
medicines bills, dressing charges etc. as Ex.PW1/D and copy of
discharge summary as Ex.PW1/E in his evidence. The deposition
of petitioner as to manner of the accident and the rash and
negligent driving of respondent no.1/driver, remained unshaken
during cross-examination of said witness by Ld. counsel for
respondent no. 3. Nothing favourable to the respondents came on
record in the cross-examination. The petitioner was not cross
examined by respondent no. 1 as no one was appearing on their
behalf during the inquiry proceedings.
7.5 Further, the very fact that respondent no.1 was
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section
279/338 IPC with respect to the accident in question/FIR
No.166/2020 is in itself a strong circumstance to support the
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.9 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:28 +0530
testimony of PW-1 and sufficiently proves the complicity of the
respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
The copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, MLC, site plan, seizure
memos of the vehicles, statements recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC,
notices issued U/s 133 of M.V. Act and its reply and photographs
on record, also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
7.6 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the
best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle and could have thrown
some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident
in question took place. However, respondent no.1/driver has not
participated in the inquiry proceedings and has chosen not to step
into the witness box during the course of inquiry. In the given
circumstances, adverse inference is liable to be drawn against
him, to the effect that the accident occurred due to his rash and
negligent driving.
7.7 In view of the above discussion and considering the
evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities
proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on
03.03.2020 which occurred at about 5:00 AM at Punjabi Bagh
underpass, Rohtak Road, New Delhi falling within the
jurisdiction of PS Punjabi Bagh due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle bearing registration number RJ32GB7468
being driven by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is
decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. (ii) :
Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if so, at what amount andAnil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.10 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:31 +0530
from whom? OPP
8.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner
is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him
and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road
accident. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it
would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in “Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar & Ors.” (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was held : –
“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.
(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
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.11 of 29
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:33 +0530
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious
cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will
be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to
loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary
damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much
difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future
medical expenses – item (iii) — depends upon specific medical
evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
Assessment of non-pecuniary damages – items (iv), (v) and (vi) —
involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability
suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the
claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary
guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually
poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability – item (ii)(a). We are concerned
with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of
earnings due to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform an
activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use
of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily
improvement or recovery which is likely to remain for the remainder
life of the injured. Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or
loss of use of some part of the body on account of the injury, which
will cease to exist at the end of the period of treatment and
recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or total.
Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform
all the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the
accident, though he is able to perform some of them and is still able
to engage in some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers
to a person’s inability to perform any avocation or employment
related activities as a result of the accident. The permanent
disabilities that may arise from motor accidents injuries, are of a
much wider range when compared to the physical disabilities which
are enumerated in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,
1995 (`Disabilities Act’ for short). But if any of the disabilities
enumerated in section 2(i) of the Disabilities Act are the result of
injuries sustained in a motor accident, they can be permanent
disabilities for the purpose of claiming compensation.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent
of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent
disability with reference to the whole body. The extent of disability
of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of a percentage of
the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed to be
the extent of disability of the whole body. If there is 60% permanent
disability of the right hand and 80% permanent disability of left leg,
it does not mean that the extent of permanent disability with
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.12 of 29
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:35 +0530
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus 60%). If
different parts of the body have suffered different percentages of
disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the
permanent disability with reference to the whole body, cannot
obviously exceed 100%.
8. 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). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that
percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent
disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent
disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said
percentage for determination of compensation (see for example, the
decisions of this court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India
Assurance Co.Ltd. – 2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v.
D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010 (8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is any
permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the tribunal should consider and decide
with reference to the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is
permanent or temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such disablement of
the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent
disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that there
is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will
proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the
actual extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on the
medical evidence, it has to determine whether such permanent
disability has affected or will affect his earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite of
the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of the
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.13 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:38 +0530
permanent ability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities of life). The second step is to
ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out whether (i) the
claimant is totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or
(ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could
still effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was
earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or restricted
from discharging his previous activities and functions, but could
carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and functions so that
he continues to earn or can continue to earn his livelihood. For
example, if the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent
physical or functional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If
the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the actual loss of earning
capacity may virtually be hundred percent, if he is neither able to
drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a clerk
in government service, the loss of his left hand may not result in loss
of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as he could
perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning
capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor
60% which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there
may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of
`loss of future earnings’, if the claimant continues in government
service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of
loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the
injured claimant may be continued in service, but may not found
suitable for discharging the duties attached to the post or job which
he was earlier holding, on account of his disability, and may
therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award under the
head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced
earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is
awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or
even anything more than 50%), the need to award compensation
separately under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation
of life may disappear and as a result, only a token or nominal
amount may have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities
or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication
in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.”
8.2 In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine 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. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the
claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads
of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.14 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:41 +0530
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. In
light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to
which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:-
MEDICAL EXPENSES
8.3(i) The petitioner has filed photocopy of MLC &
summary dated 03.03.2020 as Ex.PW1/C and photocopies of
medicines bills, dressing charges etc as Ex.PW1/D and copy of
discharge summary Ex.PW1/E on record.
8.3(ii) In the cross-examination by counsel for respondent
no. 3, it was admitted by the petitioner that he was treated under
the DAK Scheme of the Govt. of Delhi and had not incurred any
expenses on his treatment. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to
reimbursement of only the bills of the medical expenses of which
originals have been filed. The total expenses incurred by the
petitioner on his treatment, as per the original medical bills filed
on record is Rs.13,473.25/-. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled
for a sum of Rs.13,474/- (after rounding off Rs. 13,473.25/-) on
account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is
awarded Rs. 13,474/- on account of medical expenses.
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE
TREATMENT
8.4 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for
future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any
document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner
requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for
any amount under this head.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.15 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:43 +0530
TREATMENT PERIOD
8.5(i) The petitioner has claimed that he was working as
Helper with Mukesh Building Material Supplier and used to earn
Rs.15,000/- per month. But no evidence has been led by the
petitioner to prove his employment in Delhi or his income.
8.5(ii) As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner on record,
the petitioner was a resident of Bihar. Hence, the income of
injured/petitioner has to be assessed on the basis of chart of
Minimum Wages of an Unskilled person in the State of Bihar.
The minimum wages for an Unskilled person of Bihar on the
date of accident i.e. 03.03.2020 were Rs.7620/- (Rs.254/- per
day X 30 days) (refer: “Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel vs. Bababhai
Nagjibhai Rabari & Anr.” Civil Appeal no.10278 of 2025
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 08.08.2025)
8.5(iii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured
needs to be considered as Rs.7620/- per month on the date of
accident.
8.5(iv) As per the medical records relied upon by the
petitioner as MLC & summary dated 03.03.2020 as Ex.PW1/C
and photocopies of medicines bills, dressing charges etc as
Ex.PW1/D and copy of discharge summary Ex.PW1/E, the
petitioner was initially taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital,
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi where the petitioner remained under
treatment uptil 21.03.2020. As per the record, the petitioner took
further treatment at Ortho Care Hospital, New Delhi wherein he
remained admitted from 20.11.2021 to 21.11.2021.
8.5 (v) As per discharge summary issued by Maharaja
Agrasen Hospital, the petitioner was diagnosed with fracture
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.16 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:45 +0530
dislocation right knee, flail chest, fracture tibia right, lateral
collateral ligament injury right knee, patella tendon avulsion right
knee, common peroneal nerve palsy right knee and had
undergone surgical procedure of 1. orif with 8 hole narrow LCP
for fracture shaft tibia right under spinal anesthesia, 2. orif of
patellar tendon using anchor screw & extenor mechanism repair
under spinal anesthesia, 3. lateral collateral ligament repair right
knee using anchor suture (titanium size 5 mm under spinal
anesthesia and 4. common personal nerve exploration under
spinal anesthesia .
8.5(vi) Thereafter on 20.11.2021, the petitioner was again
hospitalized at Ortho Care Hospital, New Delhi for one day for
removal of his implant screw from head of right fibula. The
petitioner was discharged on 21.11.2021. The diagnosis at the
said hospital was “OPERATED CASE OF #TIBIA (rt) WITH
PLATE IN SITU WITH FOOT DROP WITH SCREW OVER
HEAD OF FIBULA (RT)”. As per the medical documents filed
on record, the petitioner continued under treatment at Ortho Care
Hospital till 02.12.2021. The petitioner has stated in his evidence
that he had also taken treatment at Advanced Orthopaedic and
Spine Center, Begusarai, Bihar. However, the petitioner has not
filed any medical documents in this regard and has also not stated
any details of the treatment taken at the said hospital and the time
period for which the treatment was taken. Thus, as per the record,
the petitioner remained under treatment uptil 02.12.2021.
8.5(vii) In view of the above discussion, the petitioner is
held entitled to compensation for loss of income during the
treatment period 21 months. Accordingly, this tribunal grants
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.17 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:47 +0530
compensation of sum of Rs.1,60,020/- (Rs.7620/- x 21) towards
loss of income during treatment period.
ASSESSMENT OF LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY DUE
TO PERMANENT DISABILITY
8.6(i) As per disability assessment report on record, the
injured has suffered 29% permanent disability in relation to right
lower limb. The diagnosis is “post traumatic foot drop right with
united fracture right both bone leg with implant in situ with
ligamentous injury right knee with implant in situ”. The disability
is opined to be non-progressive and not likely to improve.
8.6(ii) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that he
was a Helper and used to help in loading and unloading building
materials in the trucks and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month.
He further deposed that after the accident, he is unable to lift
weights and is also unable to walk properly. He deposed that he
is unable to perform his duties as a Helper like he used to do
before the accident. In his cross-examination, the petitioner
stated that presently he is not working at the same place and has
become incapable of doing the said work. He further stated that
he is presently earning Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. The
testimony of the petitioner in this regard remained unrebutted.
8.6(iii) Since, the petitioner has suffered a permanent
disability in right lower limb, the same is bound to impact his
functional capability to some extent. Even if he is earning the
same amount as he was earning at the time of accident, as argued
by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2, the same does not mean that
there is no functional disability. His efficiency at work is bound
to decline especially considering that he was working as a
Helper performing the work of loading and unloading of building
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.18 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:49 +0530
materials. With this kind of disability and with the foot drop, he
would not be able to do his work and other routine activities, in
the same manner as he could perform before the injuries
sustained in the accident in question. In the considered opinion of
this Tribunal, the petitioner would also find difficulty in
procuring a good paying job for himself with this kind of
disability, especially considering that he was performing
unskilled work in which physical fitness is much required. Thus,
the functional disability of the petitioner for the purpose of
assessment of compensation is assessed at 50%.
8.6(iv) The law is well settled that for ascertaining the
quantum of compensation for loss of future earnings on account
of disability, the multiplier method shall be applied. (Refer;
“Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & ors.” Civil Appeal no. 735 of 2020
decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 05.02.2020).
8.6(v) As per the Aadhar Card of the petitioner available
on record, the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.01.1987. The
accident occurred on 03.03.2020. Thus, the petitioner was 33
years, 2 months and 2 days at the time of accident and the
multiplier of 16 would apply. The future prospects/benefits
applicable to the present case would be 40% as per the Judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “”National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors” (2017) 16 SCC 680.
8.6(vi) The income of injured has already been assessed as
as Rs.7620/- and an addition of 40% needs to be made qua future
prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured needs
to be taken as Rs.10,668/- (Rs.7620/- + Rs.3048/- which is 40%
of Rs.7620/-).
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.19 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:51 +0530
8.6(vii) Thus, the total loss of earning capacity/loss of future
earning would be Rs.10,24,128/- (Rs.10,668/-x 12 x 16 x
50/100).
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
8.7(i) Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot
be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while
assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain
& suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken
into account including victim’s age, the unusual deprivation
suffered by victim and effect thereof on his future life, nature of
injury, parts of the body affected by the injury, surgery
undergone, confinement in hospital, duration of treatment etc.
The nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner, the treatment
undergone by him, the period of hospitalization and the
permanent disability of the petitioner has already been discussed
in the foregoing part of this judgment. As per the medical record
of the petitioner, as already discussed above, the petitioner had
suffered multiple fractures in the knees and the ribs and had to
undergo surgical procedures for implants etc. As per the
discharge summary of Ortho Care Hospital, New Delhi, the
petitioner had pain in his knee even after the passage of around
20 months after his treatment and was unable to move his foot
upward. In 2021, the petitioner had to again undergo a surgery
for removal of implant. Thus, clearly, the petitioner must have
suffered acute pain & suffering during the treatment as well as
post treatment during the time of recovery.
8.7(ii) Further, the petitioner was 33 years of age at the
time of accident and has suffered 29% permanent disability inAnil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.20 of 29
Digitally signed
GUNJAN by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:53 +0530
relation to right lower limb. As per the diagnosis in the
permanent disability report of the petitioner as well as the
discharge summary of Ortho Care Hospital, New Delhi, the
petitioner also had a foot drop (right). With the said disability,
with no chance of improvement, the petitioner would not be able
to lead the same life as he used to before the accident. There will
always be a feeling of loss. His disabilities may affect him
worsely in the future years of his life.
8.7(iii) In view of the same and considering the nature of
the injuries, the suffering and the trauma undergone by him, the
petitioner is held entitled for a compensation of Rs.70,000/-
towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE AND LOSS OF
EXPECTATION OF LIFE
8.8(i) The petitioner has suffered 29% permanent disability
in relation to left upper and lower limb. The functional disability is
assessed at 50% in this award.
8.8(ii) When a person suffers from a disability, less or more,
the same definitely impacts the mental psychology of the victim
and causes mental trauma and feeling of loss. The person who
suffers a disability definitely cannot lead his life in the same
manner with same freedom as he used to before the accident. A
person with disability as in the present case may become dependent
upon others for his routine activities. In the facts of the present case
and considering that the petitioner was 33 years of age at the time
of accident, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a notional
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the
petitioner. A notional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted to the
petitioner for loss of expectancy of life.
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.21 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:12:55 +0530
COMPENSATION ON DISFIGUREMENT
8.9 As per the diagnosis in the permanent disability
report of the petitioner as well as the discharge summary of
Ortho Care Hospital, New Delhi, the petitioner also had a foot
drop (right). In view of the same, the petitioner is held entitled
for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
SPECIAL DIET
8.10 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by
the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the
judgment. Thus, considering the same and further considering
that the petitioner must have required a long time to recover from
the injuries and would have required a protean rich diet, this
Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
towards expenses incurred on special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
8.11 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by
petitioner which have already been discussed in the foregoing part
of the award, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must
have required the assistance of some attendant during the period of
hospitalization and recovery, may be that of his family members. It
is a settled law that for grant of compensation for attendant charges,
the necessity of employment of the attendant is not required and the
petitioner is required to be compensated even for value of services
of his family members. (refer: DTC & Ors. vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ
253). Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges.
CONVEYANCE CHARGES
8.12 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.22 of 29 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06 17:12:58 +0530
nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and the follow
up treatment taken at different hospitals for around 21 months, this
Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenses
incurred on conveyance.
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE
PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.13,474/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of Nil
future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.1,60,020/-
treatment period
4. Loss of earning capacity Rs.10,24,128/-
5. Pain and Suffering Rs.70,000/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,00,000/-
8. Disfigurement Rs.1,00,000/-
9. Special Diet Rs.1,00,000/-
10. Attendant charges Rs.1,00,000/-
11. Conveyance Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.18,67,622/-
9. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is held
entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.18,67,622/- (Rupees
Eighteen Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and
Twenty Two Only) in favour of the petitioner against the
respondents.
LIABILITY :
10. The respondent no.1 being the driver & respondent
no.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle are held jointly and
severally liable to pay the award amount to petitioner. However, in
view of the foregoing discussions and since the offending vehicle
was insured with respondent no.3 at the time of accident, the
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.23 of 29
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:13:00 +0530
respondent no.3 is held liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 in
respect of above liability.
RELIEF/ISSUE NO.03
11. In view of the above findings, this Tribunal hereby
passes an award of Rs.18,67,622/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs
Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Two Only)
along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing the claim petition/DAR i.e. 25.04.2022 till the date of the
payment of the award amount (excluding interest w.e.f.
20.03.2023 to 08.04.2025 which was closed vide order dated
20.03.2023) to be paid by the respondent No.03/Insurance
Company. Respondent no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed
to deposit the award amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of
this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF
No.90891362578, IFSC Code – SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this
award together with the interest as stated herein above under
intimation to this Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioners.
In case of any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of
12% per annum for the period of delay.
APPORTIONMENT & DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD
AMOUNT
12.1 Statement of the petitioners in terms of provisions of
MCTAP was recorded on 02.09.2025 having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement,
the compensation to the petitioners shall be distributed/disbursed
as follows:-
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.24 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:13:05 +0530
Sr. Name Age/ Relatio Award Amount Amount Period of
No of DOB n with Amount of award kept in FDRs with
. petition injured to be FDRs cumulative
er/ / released interest
claiman decease
t d
1. Anil DOB: Self Rs.18,67,622 3,67,622/- 15,00,000/- Rs.
Paswan 01.01 /- along with 15,00,000/-
.1987 accrued along with
interest accrued
interest shall
be kept in the
form of FDRs
(fixed deposit
receipts) in
the multiples
of Rs.20,000/-
each for a
period of one
month, two
months and
three months
and so on and
so forth,
having
cumulative
interest.
TOTAL Rs.18,67,622/-
12.2 The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner’s Saving Bank Account.
12.3 All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid
directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the
savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s)
i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(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 claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimantAnil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.25 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:13:07 +0530
(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 claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit
card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card
be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any
other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(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 claimant(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 claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
13. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount, in the
above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving bank
account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules.
14. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph,
specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of
residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of State
Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for information
and necessary compliance.
15. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS
on 07.08.2026.
16. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties
free of cost through email.
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.26 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:13:11 +0530
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAP).
18. Ahlmad staff 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, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 2nd of July, 2026
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/02.07.2026
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.27 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:13:14 +0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 03.03.2020
2. Name of the injured : Anil Paswan
3. Age of the injured : DOB: 01.01.1987
4. Occupation of the injured : Not proved
5. Income of the injured : Rs.7620/-
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 03.03.2020 to 02.12.2021
8. Period of Hospitalization : 03.03.2020 to 21.03.2020
and 20.11.2021 to
21.11.2021
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? :
If yes, give details : 29% permanent disability
in relation to right lower
limb
10. Computation of Compensation
S.N Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
o.
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.13,474/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.10,24,128/-
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.1,60,020/-
(vii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.70,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Dis-figuration Rs.1,00,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NA
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.28 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:13:17 +0530
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability 29% permanent disability in
assessed and nature of relation to right lower limb
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Expectation of
expectation of life span on Life)
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 50%
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – As above.
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.18,67,622/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.3,59,050/-
date of award (w.e.f. 25.04.2022 to 02.07.2026
excluding interest w.e.f.
20.03.2023 to 08.04.2025
which was closed vide order
dated 20.03.2023 i.e. i.e. 2
years 1 month and 19 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.22,26,672/-
INCLUDING INTEREST (Rs.18,67,622/- + Rs.3,59,050/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.3,67,622/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.15,00,000/- including accrued
FDRs interest
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant (s).
21. Next date for compliance 07.08.2026
of the award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/02.07.2026
Anil Paswan Vs. Dharmender Rawat & Ors.
[MACT No. 336/2022] Page No.29 of 29
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.07.06
17:13:20 +0530
