Delhi District Court
Chanderhash Pandey vs Ajay on 11 July, 2026
`IN THE COURT OF DR. ABHILASH MALHOTRA
PRESIDING OFFICER: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02 , PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of:
CHANDERHAS PANDEY Vs. AJAY & ANR.
DAR NO. 590/2021
Sh. Chandrahas Pandey
S/o Sh. Nand Pandey
R/O H. No. 194, Balmiki Mandir,
Vasant Village, Delhi ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ajay
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
R/o H. No. 389, Karan Vihar,
Sultanpuri, Delhi
.... Driver-cum-Owner
Respondent no.1
2. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd.
Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
.... Insurance Company/
Respondent no. 2
Date of accident 20.09.2020
Date of filing of DAR 23.12.2021
Date of framing of issues 16.05.2023
Date of concluding arguments 03.07.2026
Date of decision 11.07.2026
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 1 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
AWARD/JUDGMENT
Index to the Judgment
BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)................................................4
FRAMING OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………………….. 5
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES……………………………………………………….5
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES…………………………………..8
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO………………………………..10
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:………………………11
ii. Adverse inference qua driver:………………………………………………………13
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:…………………………………………………..13
iv. Finding:…………………………………………………………………………………… 14
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and to what
amount?…………………………………………………………………………………………… 15
i. Extent of disability:……………………………………………………………………..15
ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:………………………………….19
iii. Loss of Future Income:………………………………………………………………23
iv. Expenditure on Treatment…………………………………………………………..27
v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):………………..28
vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):………………………………………..29
vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:…………………………………………………………….29
i. Loss of earning capacity………………………………………………………………30
ii. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):……………………………30
iii. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life…………………………………………………………..31
Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life…………………………………………………………..31
Loss of Future Income & loss of income………………………………………….31
TOTAL………………………………………………………………………………………..32
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 2 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
Non-Pecuniary Heads…………………………………………………………………… 32
iv. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering and
Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):…………………………………………………32
v. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):………………………………..33
vi. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):…………………………………………………..33
vii. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non-
Pecuniary):…………………………………………………………………………………… 34
(b) Issue No.3: Relief………………………………………………………………………….35
i. Amount of Award:……………………………………………………………………….35
ii. Rate of Interest:…………………………………………………………………………35
iii. Deposit of Award:…………………………………………………………………….. 36
iv. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:……………….38
LIABILITY………………………………………………………………………………………….40
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY
CASES………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41
COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME………………………….43
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 3 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
BRIEF FACTS/CASE OF THE CLAIMANT(s)
1. In present case, FIR bearing no. 61/2020 was registered in PS
Connaught Place, Delhi on the complaint made by complainant
Sh. Chandrahas Pandey against driver-cum-owner / R-1 Sh.
Ajay. A charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver-
cum-owner / R-1 Sh. Ajay under Section 279/338 IPC, on the
charges of rash driving of driver-cum-owner / R-1 Sh. Ajay. It is
stated that on 20.09.2020 complainant/ injured was going to his
duty at New Delhi Railway Station by riding bi-cycle and at
about 6:12 a.m, when he reached red light Regal Cinema, Outer
Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi, R-1 driver-cum-owner
while driving his car bearing registration No. HR-63-E-0389
rashly, negligently and at high speed hit the complainant/
injured due to which he fell down on the road and sustained
injuries. Thereafter he was taken to Lady Hardinge Medical
College, New Delhi where his MLC was made.
2. As per the DAR, the vehicle was driven by respondent no. 1
driver-cum-owner, owned by respondent no 2 and insured by
respondent no. 2 Insurance company.
3. Respondent no. 1 driver-cum-owner initially appeared before
this Tribunal and thereafter stopped to appear and did not file
any reply.
4. Respondent no. 2 Insurance Company filed their reply and
contested the matter.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 4 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
5. During the proceedings issues were framed on 16.05.2023
Thereafter the written submissions were filed by the claimant
in the prescribed format.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
6. Vide order dated 16.05.2023, following issues were framed
by this Tribunal:-
“1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries
in a vehicular accident that took place on
20.09.2020 at about 6:12 a.m. at Red Light
Near Regal Cinema, Outer Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi involving a
vehicle bearing registration No. HR-63-
E-0389 (offending vehicle) being owned and
driven by Respondent no. 1 in a rash and
negligent manner and insured with
respondent no. 2/ Insurance Company?OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom? OPP
3. Relief.”
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES
7. In the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal, the
following witnesses were examined:- PW-1 Mr. Chandrahas
Pandey has tendered his affidavit by way of evidence which is
Ex. PW 1/A. He proved on record the following documents
viz., copy of Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW 1/1; copy of PAN
Card which is Ex. PW 1/2; copy of qualification documents
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 5 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
which are Ex. PW 1/3 (Colly); copy of I. Card issued by the
employer cyclops which is Ex. PW 1/4; copy of salary slip of
September, 202 which is Ex. PW 1/ 4A; copy of Leaves
Certificate which is Ex. PW 1/ 4-B; copy of I. Card issued by
employer Jatayu which is Ex. PW 1/ 5; Original treatment
documents with discharge summary which is Ex. PW 1/ 6
(Colly); Disability Certificate which is Ex. PW 1/ 7; Medical
bills of Rs.47,111/- which is Ex. PW1 /8.
8. In his testimony PW-1 stated that on 20.09.2020 he was going
to his duty at New Delhi Railway Station by riding his bi-
cycle and at about 6:12 a.m, when he reached red light, Regal
Cinema, Outer Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi, R-1/
driver-cum-owner while driving his car bearing registration
No. HR-63-E-0389 rashly, negligently and at high speed hit
him due to which he fell down on the road and sustained
multiple grievous injuries including fracture on right leg and
other internal injuries all over his body. He was taken to Lady
Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi where his MLC was
made and discharged on the same day due to Covid-19. He
stated that he was advised to attend the OPD to follow up
treatment and accordingly he visited OPD on various dates.
9. PW-1 stated that he was working with M/s Cyclops Security
and Allied Pvt. Ltd. as a security guard and was getting salary
of Rs.19,864/- per month. He further stated that apart from
this job, he was doing a part time job with M/s Jatayu
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 6 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
Enterprises as a security guard and was getting salary of
Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to injuries, he could not join his
duties till 05.04.2022 from the date of accident with M/s
Cyclops Security and Allied Pvt. Ltd. but he lost the job with
M/s Jatayu Enterprises.
10.PW-1 further stated that he suffered 3% permanent disability
and a Disability Certificate is issued by Medical Board of Dr.
RML Hospital, New Delhi.
11.In his cross examination, PW-1 stated that he joined Cyclops
on 03.09.2020 as a security guard on permanent basis and was
working with M/s Cyclops in day shift from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m and earning Rs.19,864/- per month. He further stated that
he was working with M/s Jatayu Enterprises in night shift
from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month.
12.PW-2 was Mr. Lakhan Kumar, Manager Security from M/s
Cyclops Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., who is a
summoned witness and authorized to depose on behalf of the
Company. The said Authority Letter is Ex. PW 2/1.
13.PW-2 in his testimony stated that he had brought the record
pertaining to Sh. Chandrahas Pandey who was working with
their company as a security guard w.e.f. 03.09.2020 and his
gross salary was Rs.19,864/- per month. He stated that Mr.
Chandrahas Pandey was contractual employee of the
company and his duty timings were 6:00 a.m to 2:00 p.m.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 7 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
14.He further stated that after his accident, Mr. Chandrahas
Pandey did not resume his services till 05.04.2022 and
rejoined their company on 06.04.2022 and during the leave
period w.e.f. 20.09.2020 to 05.04.2022 he was not paid any
salary by the company.
15. In his cross examination, PW-2 stated that Mr. Chandrahas
Pandey was working as a security guard in their company in
the morning shift from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m, and was posted
at IRCTC. New Delhi. PW-2 stated that Mr. Chandrahas
Pandey was getting salary of Rs.17,300/- approx. after
necessary deductions.
ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY LD. COUNSELS FOR PARTIES
16.Ld. Counsel for the claimant contended that the accident
occurred due to the wanton negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle. He submitted that the factum of filing of
charge sheet itself establishes negligence on the part of the
driver.
17.Ld. counsel submitted that claimant himself is eye witness. In
his testimony he categorically stated that accident had
occurred due to negligence of insured / offending vehicle.
18.He submitted that the claimant was working as security guard
with M/s Cyclops Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. and
was also working with M/s Jatayu Enterprises. He submitted
that PW-2 Mr. Lakhan Kumar had proved on record the
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 8 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
employment record of the claimant and stated that claimant
was employed with M/s Cyclops Security and Allied Services
Pvt. Ltd. as a security guard w.e.f. 03.09.2020 and was
earning a gross salary of Rs.19,864/-. The witness also stated
that claimant resumed service only from 06.04.2022. He
submitted that though witness from the office of M/s Jatayu
Enterprises could not be summoned, but the claimant has filed
on record copy of his I. D. Card which shows that he was
working with M/s Jatayu Enterprises also and getting a salary
of Rs.10,000/- per month. He submitted that the salary of
claimant be considered as Rs. 29,864/- per month.
19.Ld. counsel for the claimant submitted that as per the medical
record and testimony of PW-2, the claimant could not work
for a period of 18 months 15 days and therefore, they have
claimed loss of income for the said period.
20.Ld. counsel further submitted that claimant has suffered 3%
permanent disability and therefore entitled for loss of future
income also.
21.R-1 driver- cum -registered owner failed to appear and argue
the matter.
22.Ld. counsel for Insurance Company submitted that initially
they have made a legal offer of Rs.80,000/- which was
revised later to Rs.2,89,690/-. She submitted that Insurance
has considered the loss of income for a period of six months
because as per the medical record filed along with DAR, the
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 9 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
claimant plaster cast was removed on 07.11.2020 (at P-101 of
DAR). claimant suffered a fall from stairs on 18.11.2020
(P-97 of DAR) and the injuries suffered thereafter cannot be
attributed to the accident and the Insurance Company cannot
be made liable to compensate for the same.
23.Ld. counsel for the Insurance company submitted that the
testimony of claimant in respect of working with two
companies as a security guard is improbable and
unreasonable. She submitted that no documents regarding the
salary obtained from M/s Jatayu Enterprises is placed on
record and the same cannot be considered as salary
component.
24. Ld. counsel for Insurance Company submitted that in the
revised legal offer they have considered functional disability
as 1.5 % and the same may be considered for the purposes of
calculation of income of the claimant.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS & FINDINGS THERETO
25. Issue No.1: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a
vehicular accident that took place on 20.09.2020 at about 6:12
a.m. at Red Light Near Regal Cinema, Outer Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi involving a vehicle bearing
registration No. HR-63-E-0389 (offending vehicle) being
owned and driven by Respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent
manner and insured with respondent no. 2/ Insurance
Company?OPP
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 10 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
i. Presumption qua complicity upon filing chargesheet:
26.Rule 21 of Annexure XIII of The Central Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989 mandates as follows:-
21. Claims Tribunal shall treat Dar as a claim petition for
compensation under Sub-Section (4) of Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (1) The Claims Tribunal shall
treat the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer as a claim
petition under Section (4) of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating
Officer is unable to produce the claimant(s) on the first date
of hearing the Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a
claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).
(2) where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim
petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim
petition.
(3) If the Report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2) of 1974 has not been filed at the time of
filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal may either wait till
filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of
Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye
witness(es) to satisfy itself with respect to the negligence
before passing the award.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a
Miscellaneous application and the IAR as well as DAR
shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous
application.
27. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera
Devi & Ors decided on 16.02.2021, 2021 LawSuit (Del) 858
it was held :
8. ….. In view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
Rules, 2008, contents of DAR had to be presumed to be
correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the
same unless proof to the contrary was produced……..”.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 11 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
28. In a recent order dated 25.02.2025, passed in Ranjeet & Anr v
Abdul Nayem Keb & Anr in SLP (c) 10351/2019, it was held
in trenchant terms as thus:
“It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed
and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is
required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven
by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined,
that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due
to negligence of the bus driver.”
ii. Adverse inference qua driver:
29. The driver of the offending vehicle steered clear of the
witness box and did not lead any controvertible evidence to
negate or refute the allegations of rash and negligent driving.
It may further be noted that in Cholamandlam insurance
company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310, it was
held that if driver of offending vehicle does not enter the
witness box, an adverse inference can be drawn against him.
In the present case also, since the driver exercised his volition
to not enter into the witness box to controvert the claim of
claimant or even to explain circumstances of accident, an
adverse inference ought to be drawn against him.
iii. Preponderance of probabilities:
30.It is trite law that in a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal,
the claimant does not have to establish negligence on the part
of the driver respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The
standards of establishing negligence is predicated onDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 12 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
preponderance of probabilities. In the present case too,
negligence has been established on this principle.
31.In this context, it would be useful to peruse Mathew
Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510 wherein it was
observed as thus:
“In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this
Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai
Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal,
(1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the
plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that,
therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It
was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-
AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts
to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 :
(2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101]
(“Bimla Devi”), it was observed that in a claim petition
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair
compensation to be granted in the event an accident has
taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor
vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into
consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular
manner need not be established by the claimants. The
claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while
considering the petition seeking compensation on account
of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same
effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has
referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530.”
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 13 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
32.In the present case, PW-1 was the eye witness to the accident.
In his testimony he categorically stated that accident has
occurred due to rash driving of offending/ insured vehicle.
The Charge sheet is also filed against R-1 driver-cum-owner.
R-1 driver-cum-owner failed to lead any evidence to rebut the
same.
33.Insurance company also did not dispute the factum of
rashness in this matter and did not claim any statutory
defence. Insurance company initially filed legal offer for
Rs.80,000/- and revised the said legal offer to Rs.2,89,690/-.
34. Accordingly, it is clear from the record that the accident had
occurred due to rash driving by the driver of insured vehicle
bearing registration number HR-63E-0389.
iv. Finding:
35.In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities that the
aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no.
HR-63E-0389 and the said vehicle at that time was driven by
respondent no. 1 driver-cum-owner, and insured with
respondent no.2. Hence, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the
claimant and against the respondents.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 14 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
(b) Issue No.2: Whether claimant is entitled to compensation, and
to what amount?
i. Extent of disability:
36.Ex. PW 1/7 viz. Report of the Medical Board of Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Hospital opined that it is a case of road traffic
accident with fracture of both bones of right leg. The
fractures have united and his Permanent Physical Impairment
is 3% in relation to his right lower limb.
37.From the record, it is amply clear that the disability suffered
by the injured is permanent in nature and there is no
ambiguity in the assessment report of the Medical Board.
38.Before proceeding further to analyze the aspect of functional
disability, it would be prudent to refer to the case law laid
down by the higher Courts. It is trite that the test to determine
the functional disability has been laid down in Raj Kumar
Vs. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 as thus:
“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.”
39.It would be apposite to peruse the following directions for
assessment of functional disability as laid down vide order
dated 09.03.2018 in Rajesh Tyagi & Ors Vs. Jaiveer Singh &
Ors, FAO No. 842/2003 dated 09.03.2018 as thus:
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 15 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
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-claimant
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:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what
activities the claimant could carry on in spite of
the permanent disability and what he could not
do as a result of the permanent disability (this is
also relevant for awarding compensation under
the head of loss of amenities of life).
(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 :
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 16 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
a) The claimant is totally disabled from earning
any kind of livelihood, or
b) 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
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. ”
40. In Sarnam Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company
Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3900/2023 dated 04.07.2023 (SC),
2023 INSC 597 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.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 17 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
The same injury sufferd by two different persons
may affect them in different 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%.”
41. Insurance Company in their revised legal offer have
considered the functional disability as 1.5 %. No reasonable
criteria is cited by the Insurance company to reduce the
functional disability. As per the disability certificate dated
22.08.2022 which is Ex. PW 1/7, the claimant has suffered
the fracture in both bones of right leg and the permanent
physical impairment is assessed as 3%. The claimant is
working as security guard and his profession requires
continuous standing and movement of legs. It cannot be
denied that the aforesaid permanent disability will hamper in
efficient discharge of his duties. There is no material on
record to justify reduction of functional disability.
Accordingly, the functional disability is considered as 3% as
claimed by the claimant for the purpose of calculations of
future income.
ii. Principles qua assessment of compensation:
42.Before adverting to the submissions of the counsels in this
regard, it would be apposite to refer to the law of the land qua
this aspect. The law has been laid down by Hon’ble SupremeDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 18 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC
343, Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Ors. (2003) 6SCC 121 and National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680. The gist
of the law is that 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 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.
43.In Raj Kumar v Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343 the
heads under which compensation is to be calculated was
expounded as thus :
“5.The provision of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (“the 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 sufferedDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 19 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
as a result of wrong done as far as money
can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The court or the 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.
Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan
Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376]
, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India)
(P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC
(Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970
AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All
ER 1528 (HL)] .]”
“6.The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the
following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalisation, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not been
injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 20 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma
as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious
cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence
of the claimant, that compensation will be
granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life.”
44.The claimant filed prescribed of the Scheme for Motor
Accident Claims qua the above heads pertaining to pecuniary
and non pecuniary damages.
45. Though the judgment of Raj Kumar (supra) deals with cases
of fatality, it is no longer res integra that the above principles
apply to cases of injury also. Recourse can be had to Yadava
Kumar v National Insurance Co Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 341
wherein it has been ordained as thus:
“9.The Second Schedule under Section 163-
A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a
structured formula for the calculation of
compensation in accident cases. Note 5 ofDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 21 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
the Schedule deals with disability in non-
fatal accidents and reads as follows:
5. Disability in non-fatal accidents
The following compensation shall be payable
in case of disability to the victim arising out
of non-fatal accidents:
Loss of income, if any, for actual period of
disablement not exceeding fifty-two weeks.
PLUS either of the following–
(a) In case of permanent total disablement
the amount payable shall be arrived at by
multiplying the annual loss of income by the
multiplier applicable to the age on the date of
determining the compensation, or
(b) In case of permanent partial disablement
such percentage of compensation which
would have been payable in the case of
permanent total disablement as specified
under Item (a) above.
Injuries deemed to result in permanent total
disablement/permanent partial disablement
and percentage of loss of earning capacity
shall be as per Schedule I under Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923.”
Thus, the multiplier method is to be applied
in cases of injuries also and it has been
applied in a number of accident cases by the
High Courts and this Court.
10. This Court in Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh
Gaud [(2007) 14 SCC 61 : (2009) 1 SCC
(Cri) 771 : (2008) 1 ACJ 9] , awarded
compensation in case of injury for loss of
future earnings and applied the multiplier
method for calculation of the same. The
same principle was recognised by this Court
in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad
Shaikh [(2009) 15 SCC 54 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 266 : AIR 2010 SC 40]”
46. An essential ingredient of the award is the loss of the future
earnings. To calculate the same, the multiplier method is usedDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 22 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
in terms of the mandate of Sarla Verma (supra) wherein it was
laid down as thus:
“42 We therefore hold that the multiplier to be
used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of
the table above (prepared by applying Susamma
Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie) which
starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the
age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years,)
reduced by one unit for every years that is M-17
for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years ,
M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45
years, and M -13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, that
is, M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years
,M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M- 5 for 66 to 70
years.”
47.The assessment of pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary
damages is discussed in the succeeding paragraphs.
iii. Loss of Future Income:
48.The injury sustained by the claimant has a bearing on his
future prospects to eke out a living in the same manner as he
would have prior to the accident. To factor into account future
prospects, several guidelines have been laid down.
49.In this context, it would be apt to refer to National Insurance
Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 wherein it
was laid down as thus:
“59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we
proceed to record our conclusions:
59.3 While determining the income, an
addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased towards futureDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 23 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40
years, should be made. The addition should
be 30%, if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased
was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should
be read as actual salary less tax.
59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed
or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income should be the warrant
where the deceased was below the age of 40
years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50
years and 10% where the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means
the income minus the tax component.
59.5 For determination of the multiplicand,
the deduction for personal and living
expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall
be guided by paras 30 to 32 of Sarla
Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC
121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2
SCC (Cri) 1002] which we have reproduced
hereinbefore.
59.6 The selection of multiplier shall be as
indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma [Sarla
Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2
SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002]
read with para 42 of that judgment
59.7 The age of the deceased should be the
basis for applying the multiplier.
59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional
heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years.”
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 24 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
50.Even though the above judgment deals with cases of fatality,
it is no longer res integra that the above principles apply to
cases of injury also. Reliance is placed on Pappu De Deo
Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 wherein it was
held as follows:
“7 Two questions arise for consideration : one,
whether in cases of permanent disablement
incurred as a result of a motor accident, the
claimant can seek, apart from compensation
for future loss of income, amounts for future
prospects too; and two, the extent of disability.
On the first question, the High Court no doubt,
is technically correct in holding that Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] involved
assessment of compensation in a case where
the victim died. However, it went wrong in
saying that later, the three-Judge Bench
decision in Jagdish [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018)
4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018)
2 SCC (Cri) 572] was not binding, but rather
that the subsequent decision
in Anant [Anant v. Pratap, (2018) 9 SCC 450 :
(2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 378 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri)
756] to the extent that it did not award
compensation for future prospects, was
binding. This Court is of the opinion that there
was no justification for the High Court to have
read the previous rulings of this Court, to
exclude the possibility of compensation for
future prospects in accident cases involving
serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay
Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] is
illogical, because it denies altogether the
possibility of the living victim progressingDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 25 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
further in life in accident cases — and admits
such possibility of future prospects, in case of
the victim’s death.”
51.As per the Aadhar card of injured filed on record the date of
birth of injured is 21.01.1976. The date of accident is
20.09.2020. On the date of accident, the injured was 44 years
and 07 months old. It is submitted that the claimant was doing
the work of security guard and was earning Rs.29,864/- per
month. PW-2 has placed on record the service record of the
claimant which shows that he was earning Rs.19,864/- per
month at the time of the accident. PW-1 claimant in his
testimony stated that he was also doing part time job with M/s
Jatayu Enterprises. Insurance has argued that no service
record from M/s Jatayu Enterprises is placed on record.
claimant has placed on record the Identity Card of M/s Jatayu
Enterprises which is Ex. PW 1/5. The said identity card shows
issuance date as 08.08.2020 that is well before the accident.
The said identity card remained unrebutted on record.
Insurance has failed to bring any positive evidence to show
that the claimant was not working with the said organization.
In case Insurance was having objection as to the employment
of the claimant, they were at liberty to summons the official
from M/s Jatayu Enterprises. No steps were taken by the
Insurance company in this regard. There is nothing on record
to belie version of PW-1 clamant that he was working in two
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 26 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
organization in different shifts as security guard. Accordingly,
the salary of the claimant is considered as Rs.19,864 +
Rs.10,000/- = Rs. 29,864/-.
52.Claimant was 44 years 07 months on the date of accident and
was in temporary employment. Accordingly, the future
prospects applicable in this case is 25% which comes to
Rs.7,466/-. The income after inclusion of future prospects
comes to Rs.37,330/-.
53.Annual income is Rs. 37,330 X 12 = Rs.4,47,960/-. Multiplier
applicable is 14. The loss of future income is 4,47,960 X 14 =
Rs. 62,71,440/-. As functional disability is 3%, therefore, loss
of future income will be Rs.62,71,440/- x 3% = Rs.1,88,143/-.
PECUNIARY LOSS iv. Expenditure on Treatment
54.claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.47,111/- under this head.
On the other hand the Insurance company has offered a sum
of Rs.4,059/- under this head in their revised legal offer. Ld.
Counsel for claimant has argued that they have filed on record
medial bills amounting to Rs.47,111/- which are Ex. PW 1/8
(Colly) showing the expenditure incurred by the claimant on
his treatment. The said bill remained unrebutted on record.
The Insurance has failed to lead any evidence to dispute the
authenticity of said bills. In the absence of any counter
evidence, produced by the insurance company, there is
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 27 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
nothing on record to doubt their authenticity. Accordingly, a
sum of Rs.47,111/- is awarded under this head.
v. Expenditure on Conveyance & Special Diet (Pecuniary):
55.Claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards
expenditure on Conveyance. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- is offered
by the insurance company under this head.
56.Claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards
expenditure on special diet. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- is offered
by the insurance company under this head.
57.Record shows that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries
and has also suffered 3% permanent disability. The treatment
of claimant took place at Lady Hardinge Hospital and he also
appeared in the hospital for follow up treatment. The claimant
had to travel a considerable distance for his treatment. It is a
matter of record that the claimant has suffered grievous
injuries and he must be requiring special diet. Accordingly, in
view of the aforesaid, the expenditure on conveyance is
considered as Rs. 20,000/- and Special Diet is hereby
quantified as Rs. 30,000/- i.e. 50,000/- in aggregate.
vi. Expenditure on Attendant (Pecuniary):
58.Ld. Counsel for claimant contended that claimant has suffered
fracture. He stated that due to medical exigencies the claimant
constrained to hire an attendant @ Rs.10,000/- per month and
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 28 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
spent around Rs.1,20,000/- for a period of one year. Insurance
company has offered a sun of Rs.30,000/- under this head.
59.As per medical report the claimant has suffered 3%
permanent disability and it cannot be denied that the services
of an attendant must have been required. Insurance company
in their legal offer have admitted that due to the nature of
injuries claimant suffered loss of income for a period of six
months. In the present case claimant suffered accident on
20.09.2020, his plaster cast was opened on 07.11.2020 and
thereafter he was on follow up treatment. In these
circumstances, the attendant charges for six months is
reasonable.
60.Accordingly, the expenditure towards pre-nursing attendant is
quantified as Rs.10,000 x 06 = Rs.60,000/-.
vii. Cost of Artificial Limb:
61. No claim is made under this head.
i. Loss of earning capacity
62. As discussed above the the loss of his earning capacity is
already quantified at 3%.
ii. Loss of Income (during the period of treatment):
63.The claimant has claimed the loss of income for a period of
18 months 15 days. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for
claimant that PW-2 in his testimony clarified that the claimant
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 29 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
joined the duty on 06.04.2022 after he suffered the accident.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for insurance company
submitted that as per the medical record the plaster cast of the
claimant was opened on 07.11.2020 and thereafter the
claimant has suffered another injuries due to fall from stairs
which is recorded in the OPD slip dated 20.11.2020 (at P-97
of DAR). She submitted that Insurance company in the legal
offer has considered loss of income for six months which is
reasonable.
64.It is a matter of record that the claimant was discharged from
the hospital in a day. Thereafter his plaster cast was opened
on 07.11.2020. The medical record dated 20.11.2020 (at P-97
of DAR) records the history of fall from stairs. In these
circumstances, it cannot be denied that the delay in joining of
duty may have been caused due to the injuries suffered by the
claimant later on. The Insurance has already considered the
loss of income for the period of six months which is
reasonable as per facts and circumstances. Accordingly, loss
of income is calculated as Rs.29,864 x 6 = Rs.1,79,184/-.
iii. Any other loss which may require any special treatment or aid
to the injured for the rest of his life
65.No amount is claimed under this head.
66.Thus, the total amount awarded under Pecuniary damages is:
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 30 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
Sr. No. Heads Amount
1. Expenditure on treatment 47,111/-
2. Expenditure on Conveyance 20,000/-
3. Expenditure on Special Diet 30,000/-
4. Expenditure on Attendant 60,000/-
5. Cost of Artificial Limb NIL
6. Loss of income (during 1,79,184/-
period of treatment)
7. NIL
Any other loss which may
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
8. 1,88,143/-
Loss of Future Income &
loss of income
Rs. 5,24,438/-
TOTAL
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 31 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
Non-Pecuniary Heads
iv. Compensation for Mental & Physical shock, Pain & Suffering
and Loss of amenities (Non-Pecuniary):
67. As stated above, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries
and permanent disability in the accident. This Tribunal is
conscious of the fact that no amount of money can erase the
trauma and grief that the victim has suffered, or the dignity
and confidence that was shattered. No amount of money can
compensate the agony that the victim has undergone, but it is
hoped that some compensation can go a long way in
alleviating a bit of the suffering that he has endured. An
e a r n e s t effort has to be made to compensate him for the
same in a just and reasonable manner.
68.The claimant has claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards
mental and psychological shock, Rs. 75,000/- towards pain
and suffering, and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities.
69.The insurance company in their legal offer has offered a sum
of Rs.25,000/- (each) for mental and physical shock and for
pain and suffering. No offer is made for loss of amenities of
life.
70.The claimant has suffered grievous injuries and also suffered
3% permanent disability. Due to injuries claimant was not
able to join his duty for considerable period of time.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 32 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
71.Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries
suffered by the claimant and duration of the treatment taken
by him etc., an amount of Rs.30,000/- (each) is being
awarded to him towards (i) Pain and suffering, and (ii)
mental and physical shock undergone by him. Further, an
amount of Rs. 30,000/- is also awarded to him for Loss of
amenities of life. Thus, compensation for Mental & Physical
shock, Pain & Suffering and Loss of amenities of life is
hereby quantified as Rs.90,000/- under this head.
v. Loss of Marriage Prospects (Non-Pecuniary):
72.No amount is claimed under this head.
vi. Disfiguration (Non-Pecuniary):
73. No amount is claimed by the claimant under this head.
However, the insurance has made a offer of Rs.25,000/-
towards disfiguration. The claimant has suffered 3%
permanent disability due to fracture and it would be prudent
to award the compensation under this head. Accordingly, a
sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under this head.
vii. Loss of earnings, inconvenience, hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress and unhappiness in future life etc. (Non-
Pecuniary):
74. A sum of Rs.50,000/- is claimed under this head. No legal
offer is made by the Insurance company under this head.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 33 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
claimant is already awarded compensation towards pain and
suffering, loss of income. Keeping in view of the overall
facts and circumstances, the claim is quantified as Rs.20,000/-
under this head.
75.Thus, the total amount awarded under Non- Pecuniary
damages is:
Sr. No Heads Amount
1. Compensation for Mental 30,000/-
& Physical shock
2. Pain & Suffering 30,000/-
3. Loss of amenities of life 30,000/-
4. Disfiguration 25,000/-
5. Loss of Marriage Prospects -NIL-
6. Loss of earnings, 20,000/-
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental stress
and unhappiness in future
life etc
TOTAL 1,35,000/-
(b) Issue No.3: Relief.
i. Amount of Award:
76.Thus, the total amount of award, after adding Pecuniary
damages (Rs.5,24,438/-) and Non Pecuniary
damages(Rs.1,35,000/-) amounts to Rs.6,59,438/-.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 34 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
77. Thus, the claimant is awarded as sum of Rs. 6,59,438/- along
with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition. The rate of interest has been calculated in terms of
the succeeding paragraphs.
ii. Rate of Interest:
78.It was contended by Ld Counsel for the respondent insurance
company that the amount of interest ought to at @7.5%, in
accordance with the general prevalent practice in Courts.
However, Ld Counsel for the claimant sought 9% as the rate
of interest.
79.In order to adjudicate these rival claims, recourse can be had
to Erudhaya Priya v State Transport Corporation 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 601 wherein the aspect of rate of interest was
categorically enunciated as thus:
(c) The third and the last aspect is the
interest rate claimed as 12%
“15.In respect of the aforesaid, the
appellant has watered down the interest
rate during the course of hearing to 9% in
view of the judicial pronouncements
including in the Jagdish case (supra). On
this aspect, once again, there was no
serious dispute raised by the learned
counsel for the respondent once the claim
was confined to 9% in line with the
interest rates applied by this Court”
80.Ergo, the amount of compensation/award amount will be
payable by the respondent insurance company with simple
interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 35 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
petition/DAR till actual realisation. The date of filing of DAR
is 23.12.2021 therefore the amount of Interest is calculated at
@ 9 % from the date of filing of petition (for 54 months) i.e.
Rs.2,67,072/-. Thus, the total amount of award is
Rs.9,26,510/-.
81.It is also clarified that in case the interest of claimant was
stopped or excluded during the present inquiry 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.
DEPOSIT OF AWARD& RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT
iii. Deposit of Award:
82.In terms of the mandate of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh
Tyagi (supra) the respondent Insurance
Company/driver/owner shall deposit the award amount or
transfer the same by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS directly to the bank
account of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in UCO Bank,
Patiala House Courts within 30 days of the award. The
respondent(s) held liable to pay compensation by the Claims
Tribunal shall give notice of deposit of the compensation
amount to the claimant(s) and shall file a compliance report
with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 36 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with the
interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant(s)
with a copy to their counsel.
83.Release: In the present matter, out of awarded amount, a sum
of Rs.2,26,510/- is directed to be released to the claimant
immediately in his bank account through electronic mode and
remaining award amount is directed to be kept with UCO
Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the Motor Accident
Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in the form of 36 monthly
fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a period of
1 to 36 months in succession.
84.The Nodal officer of the bank shall ensure disbursement of
the award within 3 weeks of receipt thereof by email or
otherwise.
85.The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject to the
addition of future interest till deposit proportionately and also
deduction of proportionate tax on the interest amount or
amount of interim award, if any, to/from his share.
iv. Disbursement of the award amount & protection thereof:
86.The amount of award shall be disbursed through the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal Annuity Deposit
(MACAD)Scheme formulated vide order dated 01.05.2018
passed in Rajesh Tyagi(supra). 21 banks, including UCO
Bank, is implementing the MACAD scheme.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 37 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
87.Further, to protect the award amount, the entire amount of
compensation is not being released forthwith to the claimant,
and part of the compensation amount has been directed to be
kept in fixed deposits in a phased manner. Further, the
following conditions are hereby reiterated and being imposed
upon the concerned bank with respect to the fixed deposits:
(a) The bank shall not permit any joint names to be added in
the savings bank account or MACAD scheme account of
claimant i.e. the bank account of claimant shall be
individual account and not a joint account.
(b) The original fixed deposits shall be retained by the UCO
Bank, PHC, New Delhi in safe custody. However, the
statement containing FDR numbers, amounts, dates of
maturity and maturity amounts shall be furnished by the
said bank to the claimant and the above amount shall be
released in account of claimant by the Manager, UCO
Bank, PHC, ND through RTGS/NEFT/or any other
electronic mode.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant
near the place of his residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) on monthly basis net
of TDS be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS)
in the above account of the claimant.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 38 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge
be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the
Court.
(f) 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.
(g) 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.
(h) 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 above.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 39 of 46 Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr. LIABILITY
88.Respondent no. 1 and Respondent no. 2 are jointly and
severely liable to pay compensation. In the present case, R-2/
Insurance company has not taken any statutory defence and
has made a legal offer. The factum of Insurance on the date of
accident is also admitted by the Insurance company.
89.Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to pay award
amount to the claimant. Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala House
Court Branch, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank
account being maintained in the above said bank in name of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal within 30 days from
today, failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9%
per annum for the period of delay. In case even after lapse of
90 days from today, respondent no. 2 fails to deposit this
compensation with interest, in that event, in light of judgment
of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of New
India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kashmiri Lal 2007
ACJ 688, this compensation shall be recovered by attaching
the bank account of respondent no. 2 with a cost of Rs.5,000/-
90.The respondent no. 2 shall inform the claimant and his
counsel that the awarded amount has been deposited so as to
facilitate him to collect the same.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 40 of 46 Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
91.Since this is a case pertaining to injury, particulars of Form-
XVI of the Scheme For Motor Accidents Claims Formulated
by the Delhi High Court in terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in
Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are as under:
1. Date of accident : 20.09.2020
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Chandrahas Pandey
3. Age of the injured : 44 Years 07 months
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job.
5. Income of the injured : Rs. 29,864/-
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : Yes
the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : As per record
9. Whether any permanent : Yes. 3% Permanent disability.
disability?
10. Computation of Compensation
Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.47,111/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs 20,000 /-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : Rs 60,000 /-
(v) Cost of artificial limb -NIL- (vi) Loss of earning capacity : 3% (vii) Loss of Income during : Rs.1,79,184/- period of treatment DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 41 of 46 Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr. (viii) Any other loss which may -NIL- require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life. 12. Non-pecuniary Loss: (i) Compensation for mental : Rs. 30,000/- and physical shock (ii) Pain and suffering : Rs. 30,000/- (iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.30,000/- (iv) Disfiguration : Rs. 25,000/- (v) Loss of marriage prospects : -NIL- (vi) Loss of earning, : Rs.20,000/- inconvenience, hardships, disappointment,frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. 13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity (i) Percentage of disability : 3% assessed and nature of disability as permanent or temporary (ii) Loss of amenities or loss of : NIL expectation of life span on account of disability. (iii) Percentage of loss of : 3% earning relation to disability (iv) Loss of future income & : Rs.1,88,143/- earning capacity 14. Total Compensation Rs.6,59,438/- 15. Interest Awarded : 16. Interest amount up to the : Rs.2,67,072/- DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 42 of 46 Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr. date of award (54 Months) 17. Total amount including : Rs. 9,26,510/- interest 18. Award amount released : Rs.2,26,510/-
19. Award amount kept in the : The remaining awarded amount be
FDRs/ Motor Accident invested and deposited in 36 monthly
Claims Annuity Deposit fixed deposits receipts (FDR) of equal
(MACAD) amounts for a period of 36 months as
per Motor Accident Claims Annuity
Deposits Schemes.
20. Mode of disbursement of : ECS
the award amount to the
petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 13.08.2026
of the award
COMPLIANCE QUA PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME
92.The particulars of Form XVII of the Scheme For Motor
Accidents Claims Formulated by the Delhi High Court , in
terms of order dated 08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra) are
as hereunder:
1. Date of the accident 20.09.2020
2. Date of filing of Form I- First N.A.
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the N.A.
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the N.A.
ownerDAR No. 590/2021 Page. 43 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A.
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 11.02.2022
Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or No.
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Insurance
Company.
11. Whether the Designated Officer of No.
the Insurance Company submitted
his report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiencies on the part of the
Designated Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the NA
petitioner(s) of the offer of the
Insurance Company.
14. Date of the Award 11.07.2026
15. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes.
directed to open savings bank
account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which petitioner(s) 11.02.2022
were directed to open savings bank
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 44 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card
and Adhaar Card and the direction
to the bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the petitioner (s)
and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook(s).
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) NA
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 Address of As mentioned above.
the petitioner(s)
19. Whether the petitioner(s) savings NA
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were No
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
93.Further, in terms of the directions given vide order dated
08.01.2021 in Rajesh Tyagi (supra), the Ahlmad shall send a
certified copy of this award to the concerned Criminal Court
and to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority through e-
mail. Copy of the award be also sent to the bank concerned.
The Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII as
per the directions given in the above case.
DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 45 of 46
Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
94. File be consigned to record room after completion of
necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for
compliance report and be put up on 13.08.2026.
Digitally signed by Abhilash Abhilash Malhotra Date: Malhotra 2026.07.11 Announced in the open court 11:23:46 +0530 on 11.07.2026 (Abhilash Malhotra) Judge/PO, MACT-02, New Delhi/ 11.07.2026 DLND010088782021 DAR No. 590/2021 Page. 46 of 46 Chandrahas Pandey Vs Ajay & Anr.
