Delhi District Court
Dafedar Singh vs Virender Singh Negi on 21 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR JAIN
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
DAFEDAR SINGH Vs. VIRENDER SINGH NEGI & ANR.
DAR NO. 764/2019
Dafedar Singh
S/o Sh. Took Ram
R/o H. No. 73/9, Kishangarh,
Vasant Kunj, Mohan Lal Apartment, Delhi
......Claimant/Injured
Versus
1. Sh. Virender Singh Negi (Driver-cum-owner)
S/o Sh. G. S. Negi
R/o H.No. 199, Pkt. 3,
Sector-19, Dwarka, Delhi
2. TATA AIG General Insurance (Insurer)
A-501, 5th Floor, Building No. 4,
Infinity Park, Dindoshi, Malad (E),
Mumbai, India - 400097
.........Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 12.12.2019 Date of framing of issues : 24.03.2021 Date of concluding arguments : 16.07.2025 Date of decision : 21.07.2025 AWARD/JUDGMENT
1. The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) for
compensation relates to grievous injury and permanent disability
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 1/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
suffered by the claimant Sh. Dafedar Singh in a road accident that
took place on 05.09.2019 at about 11:00 AM, Red Light near Leela
Hotel Chambary, New Delhi, regarding which one FIR No.167/19,
U/s 279/337/338 IPC was registered at PS Sarojini Nagar, Delhi.
The vehicle involved in this case is a car bearing registration No.
DL-1CAB-2567, which at the relevant time of accident was being
driven by respondent no.1 Sh. Virender Singh Negi (Driver-cum-
owner) and insured with respondent no. 2 (R-2) TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. Brief facts of the case as per DAR are that on receiving
DD No. 10A dated 05.09.2019, ASI Harbans Lal alongwith Ct.
Gaurav reached the spot at Red Light Africa Avenue Road Leela
Hotel Chambary where found one Auto bearing no. DL1RS-6182 in
accidental condition. It is found that the injured were taken to the
AIIMS Trauma Center where he collected the MLC of injured
Dafedar Singh, S/o Sh. Took Ram and Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh.
Ganga Prasad. Statement of injured was recorded in which he stated
that he is auto-driver by profession and on 05.09.2019 at 11:00 am
he was taking the passengers from Dr. RML Hospital to Kishangarh
and when he reached at red light, Africa Avenue near Leela Hotel
Chambary then the offending vehicle car bearing no.
DL-1CAB-2567 XUV300 driven in rash and negligent manner hit
the auto from behind and due to which the auto turned over and he
alongwith passenger suffered injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to
AIIMS Trauma Center. Pursuant to which, FIR was registered under
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 2/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
section 279/337 IPC and auto and offending vehicle were seized.
Notice under section 133 M.V. Act was given.
3. During investigation, driver/Virender Singh Negi was
arrested and medical inspection of the vehicles were conducted. On
completion of investigation, chargesheet under section 279/337/338
IPC was filed.
4. During proceedings, written statement was not filed on
behalf of the R-1 (Driver-cum-owner), however written submissions
filed by Insurance company (R-2) wherein it is stated that there is
contributory negligence on the part of injured.
5. On completion of pleadings, vide order dated
24.03.2021, following issues were framed by this tribunal as:-
1. Whether the injured persons sustained injuries
in the accident which occurred on 06.09.2019 at
about 11:20 hours at Red Light, Africa Avenue
Road, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent
driving of vehicle No. DL1CAB2567 driven and
owned by R-2 and insured with respondent no. 2?
OPP
2. Whether the injured persons are entitled for
compensation? If So, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Whether there is contributory negligence on the
part of injured? OPR
4. Relief.
8. Thereafter, the matter is referred to Ld. Local Commissioner
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 3/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
for recording of evidence.
9. In support of his claim, the claimant examined himself as
PW1 and in his evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) stated
that he was carrying passenger on 05.09.2019, and when reached at
Africa Avenue traffic signal, an offending vehicle bearing no.
DL1CAB2567 coming from behind hit his vehicle in rash and
negligent manner.
10. Respondent no. 1/driver stopped appearing in the proceedings
and Respondent no. 2/Insurance company not lead evidence.
11. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
12. My issues wise findings as under :
ISSUE NO. 1
1. Whether the injured persons sustained injuries in
the accident which occurred on 06.09.2019 at about
11:20 hours at Red Light, Africa Avenue Road, New
Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle
No. DL1CAB2567 driven and owned by R-2 and insured
with respondent no. 2? OPP
3. Whether there is contributory negligence on the part
of injured? OPR
13. PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence stated that he was
driving auto and when he reached at Africa Avenue traffic signal, an
offending vehicle bearing no. DL1CAB2567 coming from behind
hit his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, due to which his
vehicle turned turtle on the road and he sustained grievous injuries
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 4/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
and was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center. There is nothing material in
the cross-examination of PW-1 that the accident did not take place
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. He
denied suggestion that he did not suffer any accidental injuries. He
also denied suggestion that the accident took place due to his
negligence. The driver-cum-owner stopped appearing before the
court during proceedings and Insurance company also not examined
themselves to prove the contributory negligence of the injured. The
statement of PW-1 is also corroborated through chargesheet filed
against the driver (R-1).
14. The involvement of the offending vehicle is, therefore,
not in doubt. DAR/chargesheet corroborates the contention of the
injured that the accident in question took place because of rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no.
DL-1CAB-2567 by R-1.
15. Reliance is being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Meera Devi & ors., 2021 LawSuit (Del) 2021 wherein it was
held that
“……in view of Delhi Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of
DAR has to be presumed to be correct and
read in evidence without formal proof of the
same unless proof to the contrary was
produced.”
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 has observed
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 5/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
that filing of charge sheet against the driver prima facie points
towards his complicity in driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.
It has been further observed that even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal case, the same may be of no effect on the
assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident
cases by the Tribunal.
17. It is well settled that the procedure followed for
proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that
followed by a Civil Court and in Civil matters, the facts are required
to be established on preponderance of probabilities and not beyond
reasonable doubt, as are required in a criminal prosecution.
Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
Court reported as (2009) 13 SC 530 in Bimla Devi and others Vs.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, wherein it has
been observed that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular
vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the
petitioners and the petitioners were merely to establish their case on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
18. Pertinently, respondent no. 1 himself was the best
witness who could have stepped into the witness box to rebut his
involvement in the aforesaid accident, which he has failed to do.
Therefore, an adverse inference is drawn against the respondent
no.1/driver in terms of judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
passed in the case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
19. In view of foregoing discussion, it stands proved on
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 6/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
preponderance of probability that the aforesaid accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing
registration no. DL-1CAB-2567 and the said vehicle at that time
was driven by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no.2.
There is no contributory negligence of claimant. Hence, issue no. 1
and 3 are decided in favour of the claimant and against the
respondents.
20. ISSUE NO.2
2. Whether the injured persons are entitled for
compensation? If So, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
20. As the issue No.1 has been proved in favour of the
claimant, he has become entitled to be compensated for the injuries
suffered by him in the accident, but the computation of
compensation and liability to pay the same are required to be
decided.
21. In terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988,
the compensation which is to be awarded by this Tribunal is
required to be ‘just’. In injury cases, a petitioner is entitled to two
different kinds of compensation i.e. pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, has laid down heads
under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases as:-
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 7/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and mis-
cellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the in-
jured 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).
22. Having considered the ratio of aforesaid judgment, the
compensation payable to petitioner is assessed hereinafter under the
following heads as:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
23. PW-1/injured Dafedar Singh in his affidavit of
evidence (Ex.PW1/A) stated that in the accident he sustained
grievous injuries and diagnosed with ‘distal 1/3 RD shaft of femur
left’. The injured was taken to AIIMS on 05.09.2019 and discharged
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 8/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
on 13.09.2019. In cross-examination, he denied suggestion that he
was not working as TSR driver at the time of accident and was not
earning a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The injured filed medical
bills (Ex. PW1/4 ) for treatment which are totaling of Rs. 35,134/-.
Accordingly, the injured/claimant is awarded the amount of Rs.
35,134/- towards medical treatment.
(ii) Loss of earnings
24. The claimant in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A has claimed
that at the time of accident, he was working as an auto driver and
earning Rs. 25,000/- per month. Due to the injuries, he is not able to
reach full range motion and not able to drive or do any kind of
work.
25. In these circumstances, since income and employment
of the injured has not been established on record, however the
injured is found to be auto driver having valid driving license to
drive auto, thus the minimum wages of skilled person is taken into
account as per rates prevalent in Delhi, which was Rs.17,508/- per
month at the time of accident. (relied upon order of Hon’ble
Supreme Court ‘Jitendra Vs. Sadiya & Ors., C.A No. 2209/25, dt.
07.02.2025,)
26. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, disability and
duration of his treatment, medical bills related to visits, medicines
and medical procedures, this Tribunal feels it just and reasonable to
compensate him for loss of earning for a period of four months.
Therefore, under this head, he is being awarded an amount of Rs.
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 9/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
70,032/- ( Rs.17,508/- X 4 months).
(iii) Loss of future earnings
27. As per disability certificate dated 22.03.2022, claimant
is a case of fracture shaft femur left with implant in situ and his knee
has terminal restriction 20 degree of motion in flexion, and his
permanent physical impairment is 9%.
28. The law with regard to grant of compensation due to
permanent disability and determination of functional disability etc.
was well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has
been held as under :-
“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 ex-
tent possible, fully and adequately restore the peti-
tioner 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 phys-
ical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a
result of such injury. This means that he is to be com-
pensated 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).
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 10/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disab-
ility on the actual earning capacity involves three steps.
The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the
petitioner could carry on in spite of the permanent dis-
ability and what he could not do as a result of the per-
manent ability (this is also relevant for awarding com-
pensation 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 petitioner is
totally disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or
(ii) whether in spite of the permanent disability, the pe-
titioner could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii)
whether he was prevented or restricted from dischar-
ging 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
petitioner is amputated, the permanent physical or func-
tional disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the
petitioner 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 petitioner was a clerk in government ser-
vice, 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 petitioner
continues in government service, though he may be
awarded compensation under the head of loss of amen-
ities as a consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes
the injured petitioner may be continued in service, but
may not found suitable for discharging the duties at-
tached to the post or job which he was earlier holding,
on account of his disability, and may therefore be shif-
ted 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
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 11/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
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 compensa-
tion 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 awar-
ded under the head of loss of amenities or loss of ex-
pectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplica-
tion in the award of compensation. Be that as it
may………….”
29. Considering the legal position discussed above coupled
with the disability certificate, his occupation and his age, the
functional disability of petitioner is, therefore, taken as 9% in
relation to whole body.
30. To apply the multiplier, it is necessary to ascertain the
age of the claimant. The claimant has tendered on record copy of his
driving licence (Ex. PW1/7), in which the date of birth of claimant
is found recorded as 01.08.1971. Hence, going by these document,
the age of claimant on the date of accident, i.e. 05.09.2019 comes
out to be around 48 years 6 months 28 days at the time of accident.
He had yet not completed the age of 49 years.
31. Accordingly, in terms of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also
been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, the multiplier of ’13’ is applicable in the
present case.
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 12/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
32. Further, the claimant is also held entitled to 25% future
prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Pranay Sethi & Ors.(Supra). Thus, the loss of future earnings caused
to the petitioner due to his permanent disability comes to Rs.
3,07,265.4/-(rounded off to Rs. 3,07,266/-) (Rs.17,508/- X 12 X
9/100 X 13 X 125/100).
(iv) Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of
Amenities
33. As stated above, the petitioner had suffered grievous
injuries and permanent disability in the accident. Though, it is not
possible to exactly compensate him for the shock, pain and
sufferings etc. which he had actually suffered because of the above
injuries, but an effort has to be made to compensate him for the
same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the
extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and
duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of
Rs.50,000/- each is being awarded to him towards (i) mental and
physical shock and (ii) for pain and sufferings respectively. Further,
an amount of Rs.25,000/- is also awarded to him towards the loss
of amenities suffered by him during said period of his treatment.
Thus, he is awarded total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Special Diet and Attendant Charges
34. The claimant in his affidavit has not claimed for
conveyance and special diet. However, considering the nature of
injury and the treatment undergone, the injured might have spent Rs.
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 13/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
10,000/- towards conveyance and Rs. 30,000/- spent towards special
diet for his early recovery from the injuries suffered because of the
accident. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the total amount of Rs.40,000/- is being awarded to the
claimant towards special diet and conveyance.
35. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and disability
suffered by the claimant, he would have required assistance of some
family member/attendant for doing his daily routine work for
atleast three months, therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month for
three months is also being awarded to the claimant towards
attendant charges. The petitioner is thus entitled to an amount of Rs.
70,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs. 30,000 + Rs. 10,000/- X 3 months)
under this head.
ISSUE No. 3/Relief
36. In view of foregoing discussion, the petitioner is thus
awarded a sum of Rs. 6,07,432/- (Rupees Six Lakh Seven Thousand
Four Hundred Thirty Two only) (Rs. 35,134/- + Rs. 70,032/- +
Rs.3,07,266/- + Rs.1,25,000/- + Rs.70,000/-) along with 7.5%
interest from the date of filing of DAR. However, it is directed that
the amount of interim award and interest for the suspended period, if
any, during the course of this inquiry, shall be liable to be excluded
from the award amount.
RELEASE
37. Out of the awarded amount, 80% amount is directed to
be kept with UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 14/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit (MACAD) in form of 75
monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of equal amounts for a
period of 1 to 75 months in succession, as per scheme formulated
by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.05.2018 in
FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh
& Ors. and as implemented vide subsequent order dated 07.12.2018
and order dated 08.01.2021 passed in the said case. The amount of
FDRs on maturity would be released in his saving/MACT Claims
SB Account opened/to be opened near the place of his residence, as
directed vide Order dated 07.03.2018 and the remaining 20%
amount is also directed to be released into his above said account,
which can be withdrawn through withdrawal form and utilized by
him.
38. The disbursement to the claimant is, however, subject
to 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.
39. 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.
40. 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
petitioner and the above amount shall be released in account of
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 15/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
petitioner by the Manager, UCO Bank, PHC, ND through
RTGS/NEFT/or any other electronic mode.
41. The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the saving bank account of the claimant near the
place of his residence.
42. 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 claimant.
43. No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the MACAD without permission of the
Court.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 16/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
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.
LIABILITY
47. The defence of contributory negligence stands negated
and there is no statutory defense of Insurance Company.
48. All the respondents are though being held jointly and
severally liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation to
claimant, but respondent no. 2 being insurer of offending vehicle, is
directed to deposit the award amount with UCO Bank, Patiala
House Court Branch, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of filing of DAR by RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in bank account
being maintained in the above said bank in name of this 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/-.
49. The respondent no. 2 shall inform the petitioner and his
counsel through registered post that the awarded amount has been
deposited so as to facilitate him to collect the same.
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 17/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
50. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost
or be sent to them by email. Ahlmad is directed to send a copy of the
award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Judgment titled as Rajesh Tyagi Vs.
Jaibir Singh & Ors. passed in FAO No.842/2003 dated 12.12.2014.
51. Further, Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII as per the directions given by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the above case on 08.01.2021.
52. The particulars of Form-XVII of the Modified Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure, in terms of directions given by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the above case on 08.01.2021, are as
under:
1. Date of the accident 05.09.2019
2. Date of filing of Form I- First NA
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the NA
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the NA
Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from NA
the owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- NA
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and NA
Form VIB from the Victim (s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII-Detailed 12.12.2019
Accident Report (DAR)DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 18/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
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 Not given
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 Legal offer filed but
petitioner(s) of the offer of the response was not
Insurance Company. received from
petitioner/claimant
14. Date of the Award 21.07.2025
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) 12.12.2019
were directed to open savings bank
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).
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 19/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
17. Date on which the petitioner(s) Yet to furnish
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 Yet to furnish
bank account(s) is near his place of
residence?
20. Whether the petitioner(s) were Yes
examined at the time of passing of
the award to ascertain his/their
financial condition?
53. File be consigned to record room after completion of
necessary formalities. Separate file be prepared for compliance
report and be put up on 30.10.2025. AJAY
Digitally signed
by AJAY
KUMAR JAIN
KUMAR Date:
JAIN 2025.07.21
16:56:56 +0530Announced in the open court. (Ajay Kumar Jain)
on 21.07.2025 PO/MACT, New DelhiEncl: The summary of computation in the prescribed format
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 20/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD IN INJURY
CASES IN FORM XVI
1. Date of accident : 05.09.2019
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Dafedar Singh
3. Age of the injured : 48 years 6 months 28
days
4. Occupation of the injured : Minimum wages of
skilled worker in Delhi.
5. Income of the injured : Rs.17,508/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by : AIIMS Trauma Center
the injured
8. Period of hospitalization : 05.09.2019 to
13.09.2019
9. Whether any permanent : 9% permanent disability
disability? and functional disability
taken as 9%.
10. Computation of Compensation
Sr.No. Heads
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment : Rs.35,134/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance : Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant : Rs.30,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity : Nil
(vi) Loss of Income : Rs.70,032/-
(vii) Any other loss which may : Nil
require any special
treatment or aid to the
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 21/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
injured for the rest of his life
(Future treatment)
12. Non-pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental : Rs.50,000/-
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering : Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.25,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, : Nil
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 : 9% permanent disability
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 : 9% functional disability
earning relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income : Rs.3,07,266/-
14. Total Compensation Rs. 6,07,432/-
15. Interest Awarded : 7.5% pa from date of
filing of DAR till the
date of award to be
deposited in 30 days
and 9% thereafter.
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 22/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
16. Interest amount up to the : Rs.2,55627.63/-
date of award
17. Total amount including : Rs.8,63,059.63/-
interest (rounded off to
Rs.8,63,100/-)
18. Award amount released : 20% share
19. Award amount kept in the : 80% share
FDRs/ Motor Accident
Claims Annuity Deposit
(MACAD)
20. Mode of disbursement of : Through Bank
the award amount to the
petitioner (s)
21. Next date for compliance : 30.10.2025
of the award
AJAY Digitally signed
by AJAY KUMAR
KUMAR JAIN
Date: 2025.07.21
JAIN 16:56:47 +0530
(Ajay Kumar Jain)
PO/MACT, New Delhi
21.07.2025
DAR No. 764/19 21.07.2025 Page 23/23
Dafedar Singh Vs. Virender Singh Negi & Anr.
