Delhi District Court
Dar-Bhura vs Nadeem And Ors on 14 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.: 199/23
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Bhura
S/o Sh. Ratanpal
R/o H No. E-72, Gali no. 5, East Gokalpur, Delhi.
........ Petitioner
Vs.
1. Sh. Nadeem
S/o Mohd. Saleem
R/o H No. A-152, Gali no. 4, Kabeer Nagar, Delhi.
.... (Driver)
2. Sh. Faim
S/o Sh. Mohd. Yasin
R/o H No. A-7/771, Gali no. 1, Kabeer Nagar, Delhi .
.... (Owner)
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd.
F-14, 1st floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1, Delhi
..... (Insurer)
... Respondents
Date of institution of DAR petition : 06.04.2023
Date of Arguments : 14.05.2026
Date of Award : 14.05.2026
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioner : Sh. Manmohan Tiwari
For R1 and R2 : Mohd. Salim
For respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance Co. : Sh. S P S Chauhan
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 1 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:37:00
+0530
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the DAR treated as MACT
claim petition bearing no. 199/23, under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, filed for the petitioner/injured and against the
respondents as mentioned in the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 02.02.2020, at about
01:00 pm, one Atul came to his father’s samosa shop for delivering lunch
and was standing near the samosa cart of his father, at Saboli Fatak Meet
Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar. It has been alleged
that in the meanwhile, a tractor bearing registration no. HR13Q-4719
(hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle), came at a very high speed and
hit the samosa cart as aforesaid, due to which the hot oil from the cart
spilled over the body of the said Atul and he sustained burn injuries. It has
been further alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven by its
driver i.e. respondent no. 1 (R1) herein, at a very high speed and in a rash
and negligent manner without taking necessary precautions at the time of
the accident. Allegedly, the above-said Atul sustained grievous injuries due
to the impact of hit by the offending vehicle and he was thereon
immediately taken to GTB hospital, where his MLC was prepared, vide
MLC No. B-3112/06/2020, before being referrred to Shanti Nursing Home
& Maternity Centre, Meet Nagar, Delhi for further treatment. An FIR in this
regard was also registered at PS Jyoti Nagar, vide FIR no. 416/20, for the
offences u/s 279/338 IPC. The present DAR thereafter came to be filed in
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 2 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:37:07
+0530
due course on 06.04.2023.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. In their joint WS filed by R1 and R2, being the driver and owner of
the offending vehicle respectively, it has been contended that the alleged
accident took place due to the negligence of injured himself. It has been
further contended that the R1 was having a valid and effective driving
licence at the time of the accident and that the offending vehicle was duly
insured with respondent no. 3 (R3) i.e. MAGMA HDI General Insurance
Co. Ltd. vide policy cover no. P0020100023/4107/10580, with its validity
from 22.05.2019 to 21.05.2020. However, the respondents denied the
averments of the claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e. MAGMA HDI General Insurance Company Ltd.,
also filed its separate detailed written statement, wherein it has been
admitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide
insurance policy no. P0020100023/4107/100580, with its validity from
22.05.2019 till 21.05.2020. However, it has been contended that the said
policy was only for the tractor and not for the trolley attached to it as no
additional premium was paid by the owner for the trolley which was
attached with the Tractor at the time of the accident. The respondent no. 3
thus denied its liability and prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by
the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13.05.2024, as under:-
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 3 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:37:13
+0530
(i) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
02.02.2020 at about 02:09 pm near Saboli Fatak Meet Nagar, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
bearing no. HR-13Q-4719 being driven by respondent no. 1/driver ? OPP.
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent
and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE (PE)
5. In order to prove the case, the petitioner examined himself, being the
father of the injured Atul, as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW-1/A,wherein he reiterated the contents of the DAR petition
and relied upon the following documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
01 Mark A Copy of Aadhar card of deponent
02 Ex.PW-1/1 (colly 20 pgs) Copy of medical bills
(objected to on the mode of
proof)
03 Ex.PW-1/2 (colly 36 pgs) Treatment record
(objected to on the mode of
proof)
04 Mark B Photographs of injury
05 PW1/3 (colly 6 pgs) Educational documents of class-1 of
injured master Atul
He was cross examined and discharged.
6. In order to prove the case, injured Atul also examined himself as
PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-2/A, wherein
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 4 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:37:18
+0530
he reiterated the contents of the DAR petition. He was cross-examined and
discharged.
7. The petitioner did not examine any other witness and PE stood closed
by The Tribunal vide order dated 21.04.2025.
Respondents’ Evidence (RE)
8. Respondent no. 1 and 2 failed to lead any evidence despite being
granted sufficient opportunity in this regard and RE for R1 and R2 was
finally closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.05.2025.
9. In order to prove its defence, respondent no. 03, ie. insurance
company examined Sh. Rahul Kumar Sharma, Deputy Manager, Magma
HDI GIC Co. Ltd. as R3W1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex. R3W1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1. Ex. R3W1/B Authority letter
2. Ex.R3W1/1 (colly Insurance policy
7 sheets)
3. Ex R3W1/2 Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC
4. Ex.R3W1/3 to Ex. Original postal receipt
R3W/4
He was cross-examined and discharged.
10. The respondents did not examine any other witness and RE stood
closed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2026, in view of the separate
statement of Ld. Counsel for R3 recorded to this effect.
11. Final arguments heard. File perused.
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 5 of 27 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date: 2026.05.14 16:37:23 +0530 Issue wise findings Issue no.1
Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
02.02.2020 at about 02:09 pm near Saboli Fatak Meet Nagar, Delhi within the
jurisdiction of PS Jyoti Nagar due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
bearing no. HR-13Q-4719 being driven by respondent no. 1/driver ? OPP.
11. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases
and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of
probabilities. 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 by
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of evidence or
beyond reasonable doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The
burden of proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, this
burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case. Reference in this regard
can be made to the propositions of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors,
2011 (1) SCR 1906 (Civil Appeal No. 1082 of 2011) and also recently in
another case Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law
Suit (SC) 303.
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 6 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:37:29
+0530
12. Herein the present case, the petitioner being the father of the injured
and the injured victim have examined themselves as the star witnesses to
show that the R-1 being the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and
negligent in his driving of the tractor, due to which the victim suffered
injuries. It has been specifically stated by the PW-2 that he suffered burn
injuries after the samosa cart had been hit by the offending vehicle being
driven by R-1 with a great force in a rash and negligent manner. The
assertions made by the petitioner while deposing as PW-1 and even by
PW-2 have remained unimpeached. The fact that the R-1 was driving the
offending vehicle at the time of the incident or that the victim suffered
injuries due to the incident in question has neither been denied nor even
disputed in any manner by the respondents.
13. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an
accused in case FIR No. 416/20, PS Jyoti Nagar, for the offences u/s
279/338 IPC, is also a strong circumstance to support the above said
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 on these issues. At the same time, it is an
admitted fact on record that the R-1 has been charge-sheeted in the criminal
case pertaining to the incident in question. The position of law in this regard
has been made clear in the case of “National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha
Rana”, 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it has been held that filing of
Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the
offending vehicle. Similar observations have been made in the case of
“United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and Ors.“, 2014 (2) Tac
846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the criminal case on record
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 7 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:37:33
+0530
pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle, whereby the criminal
records showing completion of investigation by the police and filing of
Chargesheet under Section 279/338/304-A/427 IPC against the driver have
been proved, then, the documents mentioned above are sufficient to
establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing the accident.
Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case where driver
after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then the documents
mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the
offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident particularly when
there was no defence available from his side before the Learned Tribunal.
14. Besides the above, respondent no. 1 namely Nadeem was the best
witness who could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the
depositions being made by PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the above accident
and its manner etc., but they have not done so. Therefore, an adverse
inference on this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents
in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi).
15. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending
vehicle being driven by R-1 at the relevant time had indeed hit the victim
thus resulting into grievous injury being caused to the victim.
16. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful
act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances underMACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 8 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:37:42
+0530
which his vehicle (i.e. the offending tractor) hit the samosa cart leading to
burn injuries being suffered by the victim. In the absence of any averment
or evidence regarding any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any
material depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the
injured or any other such person, the only inference possible in the given
facts and circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the above
discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty of gross neglect
and default in driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time leading to
the grievous injuries to victim.
17. In view of the medical treatment documents placed on record by the
petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by his
son/victim in the incident in question. Furthermore, perusal of the disability
certificate reveals that the son of the petitioner has suffered 10% permanent
locomotor disability in relation to bilateral lower limbs due to the injuries
suffered by him on account of the rash and negligent act of R-1.
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal has no
hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the victim suffered grievous
injuries on his person on account of neglect and default of R-1 in driving the
offending vehicle at the relevant time. The issue at hand is thus hereby
decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner/victim
accordingly.
Issue no. (ii)
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 9 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:37:49
+0530
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP.
19. In view of the finding on Issue no. 1, victim Atul is entitled to get
compensation. However, quantum of compensation still needs to be
adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the
claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and
reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall
or a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the
physical injury : he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result
of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord
Reid).
20. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of
compensation in injury cases has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case titled as Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt.
Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The relevant extract is as under:
“Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation
payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be
assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which is capable of being calculated in terms of
money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may,
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain suffering, already suffered or likely to beMACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 10 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:37:54
+0530
suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or
sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e. on
account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned
is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment,
hardship, frustration and mental stress in life.”
21. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation
of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are
reproduced as under:
5. The provisions 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 suffered 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.
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary Damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous
expenditure.
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 11 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:38:00
+0530
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
(iv) Damages to 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.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
22. As per the medical treatment record pertaining to victim/
injured Atul, the latter sustained grievous injuries due to the accident in this
case.
Nature of Injuries: As per the MLC of the victim/injured, the
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 12 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:38:05
+0530
latter suffered “burn injury present over B/L thigh with genetalia left
buttock”. The injuries suffered by the victim resulted into permanent
locomotor disability of 10% in relation to his bilateral lower limbs. The
disability certificate has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/2 (colly).
Disability, if any: As per the aforementioned disability
certificate, the victim/ injured Atul has suffered permanent physical
disability of 10% in relation to bilateral lower limbs. The victim/ injured
Atul claims to be studying in class 1 st and as such he needs fully functional
limbs to continue his studies and for earning his future livelihood.
Therefore, keeping in view the said nature of injuries and the permanent
disability suffered by the victim as aforesaid, the Tribunal is of the opinion
that the victim will suffer a functional disability of 5% and hence, the
functional disability of the victim is hereby assessed to be 5%.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
23. In the present case, as per the material brought on record, the victim/
injured had undergone initial treatment at GTB Hospital, where he remained
admitted for his treatment from 02.02.2020 to 25.02.2020, before being
further treated at Shanti Nursing Home and Maternity Centre. Moreover, the
petitioner has filed bills for the treatment of injured from different hospitals
and the bills for the medicines as per the prescription slip of the treatment.
The petitioner has brought on record bills totaling Rs. 65,072/- as the cost of
the medicines borne by the injured during the treatment and the same have
not been denied or disputed by the respondents. There is no reason to doubt
the veracity or genuineness of the said bill/ receipt. In these circumstances
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 13 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:38:11
+0530
and in view of the material on record, the victim shall be entitled to sum of
Rs. 65,072/- and accordingly, the petitioner / injured Atul is hereby awarded
the said amount i.e. Rs.65,072/- towards Medicines and Medical Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
24. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, victim/
injured Atul had suffered “burn injury present over B/L thigh with genetalia
left buttock” and he had to be operated for the same. In these circumstances,
the victim/ injured Atul must have visited the hospital/doctors for his
treatment and would also have required special diet for certain period to
recover from the injuries sustained in the accident. In the present case, the
victim must have undergone treatment for about 03 months from the date of
accident as is apparent from his treatment record. In these circumstances
and in view of the material on record, the injured shall be entitled to a sum
of Rs. 20,000/- towards conveyance charges for his visit to the various
hospitals. Further, in view of the above-said grievous injuries suffered by
him, the victim must have needed special diet for a similar period to have a
fast and proper recovery. Hence, the victim/ injured Atul is hereby awarded
Rs.20,000/- towards expenses for special diet.
LOSS OF INCOME
25. In the present case, the victim/ injured Atul was aged around 11
years at the time of accident as reflected from his Aadhar card and
educational documents Ex. PW1/3 (colly). In case of determining the
quantum of compensation for accidental injuries suffered by a child, the
first challenge before the MACT, would be to determine the amount of
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 14 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:38:16
+0530
compensation under the head loss of earning. As the child being at such
tender age, there cannot be any specific or proven criteria to decide the just
and fair amount of compensation under the above said head. Moreover, the
Tribunal would be required to take notional income of the child for
determining the amount of compensation. In this case given the age, the
nature of injuries, social background of the child and future possibilities,
this Tribunal finds that in the light of observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand AIR 2020 SC 776 (para 20), it would be in the
interest of justice to consider the notional income of child at parity with
minimum wages of a “skilled worker” in Delhi during the relevant period
(02.02.2020) i.e. Rs.17,924/- per month and the same is hereby taken as
criteria for calculating the loss of income to the victim in this case. In the
given circumstances, considering the fact that the victim was taking
treatment from hospital multiple times in relation to his injuries spanning
over 03 months and also considering the nature of injury, he would have
taken at least 03 month time for recovery, he is hereby held entitled to a
sum of Rs.53,772/- (17,924/- X 3 month) under the head Loss of Income
during the treatment.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
26. The petitioner/injured Atul has not deposed anything about keeping
an attendant or spending any money on an attendant during the time of his
treatment for the injuries suffered by him on account of incident in question.
Moreover, neither any attendant has been examined nor any documentary
proof regarding the payment being made to any such attendant have been
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 15 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:38:22
+0530
brought on record by the petitioner/injured in this case. Nevertheless,
considering the nature of injuries, extensive treatment and the prolonged
recovery period, the victim/ injured Atul must have required the services of
an attendant for about three months. It is pertinent to note that the
victim/injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even
if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his
family members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.
Vs. Lalita (AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards
gratuitous services rendered by some of the family members. Further, the
victim must have spent at least Rs. 7,000/- per month if he had an attendant.
In these circumstances, the victim/ injured Atul shall be entitled to an
amount of Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 7,000 X 3 months) towards attendant charges.
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
27. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain and sufferings, the
following factors have to be taken into account:-
(a) Nature of injury (b) Parts of body where injuries occurred (c) Surgeries, if any (d) Confinement in hospital (e) Duration of the treatment
28. In the instant case, the victim/ injured Atul has suffered 10%
permanent physical disability in relation to bilateral lower limbs, but the
same will not render him as 100% disabled person for several jobs and day
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 16 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:38:26
+0530
to day activities of life. However, undergoing the operation for the injuries
suffered by the victim would have caused him unimaginable pain and
sufferings. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the
case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (arising out of
SLP (C) No. 5649-51 of 2012), the victim/ injured Atul is entitled to
compensation on account of pain and suffering due to the accident. The pain
and sufferings of victim cannot be adequately compensated in terms of
money as no amount of money can be substitute for the lost function of a
limb, but nevertheless, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is hereby awarded to victim/
injured Atul towards the head “pain and sufferings”.
LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES
29. The victim/ injured Atul has claimed that he has suffered loss of
enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of the accident. The
petitioner / injured was about 11 years old at the time of accident and has
suffered grievous injuries. His permanent disability would hinder his daily
activities as well as his enjoyment of life. Loss of ability to indulge in
physical activity is also likely to adversely affect his overall health. In these
circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha
Jain (Supra), the victim is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as
compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and amenities. In addition
to this, the victim is also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as just and fair
compensation for mental and physical shock suffered by him due to the
accident in this case.
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 17 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:38:31
+0530
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
30. The victim/ injured Atul in this case happened to be about 11 years
of age and was unmarried at the time of the incident. victim/ injured Atul
has neither contended nor proved any loss of marriage prospects on account
of injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. However, on perusal
of the medical documents of the injured, it is revealed that the victim/
injured has been left with a permanent scar due to the burn injuries suffered
by him in the accident. Therefore, it is reasonably apparent that the victim
will suffer loss of matrimonial prospects in future. Hence, an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- is hereby awarded to the victim under this head on account of
compensation for loss of matrimonial prospects.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME / PROSPECTS
31. Law with regard to assessment of loss of future earning due to
disability has already been discussed in earlier portion of the judgment by
referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar & Anr. (supra). In the facts and circumstances of the case, it has
come from the evidence of PW-1 (father of injured Atul) that victim/injured
suffered grievous injuries in his thighs and being a child of tender age he
must have suffered great amount of mental and physical agony. In addition
to PW-1, petitioner has proved the disability certificate of the injured, as per
which injured suffered 10% of permanent disability in relation to bilateral
lower limbs. Thus the nature of the injuries suffered by the injured at initial
stage of his life, clearly establish that injured has lost his future prospects to
a great extent.
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 18 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:38:36
+0530
32. In the light of the ratio laid down in Raj Kumar‘s case (supra),
this Tribunal is supposed to decide the functional disability of injured. In
case of a child, such job becomes even more challenging to decide the
question of functional disability. In this case injured was only 11 years of
age when he suffered 10% of permanent disability. In this context one
factor which can be kept in mind while assessing the compensation under
the above said heading is that present claim can be awarded only once.
Claimant cannot come back to the court for enhancement of the award at
later stage, with the prayer that something extra has been spent. Therefore,
the Tribunal while deciding the compensation is required to take liberal
view where the child has suffered permanent medical disability upto 10%
on account of grievous injuries in his bilateral lower limbs. Effectively the
child would remain disabled for whole of his life and that aspect must have
to be borne in mind while deciding the question of functional disability in
case of a child whose all future avenues were bright and open. In such
circumstances, keeping in view the said nature of injuries and the permanent
disability suffered by the victim/ injured Atul as aforesaid, the Tribunal is of
the opinion that the victim will suffer a functional disability of 5% and
hence, the functional disability of the victim/ injured Atul is hereby assessed
to be 5%.
33. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from
the multiplier method in injury cases also laid down in case titled as
“Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande & Anr.“, (2017) 3 SCC 351.
As per documents of age of the victim/ injured Atul i.e. Aadhar
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 19 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:38:41
+0530
card and educational documents as Ex.PW1/3, the date of birth of the
injured is mentioned to be 04.04.2008. As such at the time of accident i.e.
on 02.02.2020, victim was 11 years of age. Therefore, multiplier to be
applied in the present case would be 18. Moreover, the law has been well
settled by the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Sandeep Khanuja
(supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 of 2020) (Arising out of SLP (C) No. S8495-
8496 of 2018) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects
on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration.
Thus, an addition of income to the extent of 40% towards future prospects
has to be counted.
34. As discussed above, the the loss of future prospects / income is
calculated as:
Minimum wages Rs. 17,924/- X 40% (Future Prospects) Rs. 7,169/-
Rs. 17,924/- + Rs. 7,169/- Rs. 25,093/- Rs. 25,093/- X 5% (Disability) Rs. 1,254/- Rs. 1,254/- X 12 X 18 (Multiplier) Rs. 2,70,864/-
Hence, the victim/ injured Atul shall be entitled to compensation of
Rs. 2,70,864/- under this head.
35. The break-up of compensation that has been awarded to victim/
injured Atul is tabulated as below:-
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.) MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 20 of 27 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP PRATAP Date: 2026.05.14 16:38:46 +0530 1 Medicines and Treatment 65,072.00 2 Conveyance 20,000.00 3 Special Diet 20,000.00 4 Loss of income 53,772.00 5 Attendant Charges 21,000.00 6 Pain and Sufferings 25,000.00 7 Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities 25,000.00 8 Compensation for mental and physical 25,000.00 shock 9 Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000.00 10 Loss of future income / prospects 2,70,864.00 Total 6,25,708.00 LIABILITY
36. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay
the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 Nadeem is the principal
principal tort feasor being the driver of the offending vehicle, while the
respondent no. 2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending
vehicle for the acts of his employee i.e. driver. It is pertinent to note that the
respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has specifically admitted in its
written statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the time of
accident with respondent no. 3, vide policy bearing no.
P0020100023/4107/100580, in the name of Faim i.e. respondent no. 2 (R2)
herein, with its validity from 22.05.2019 till 21.05.2020. However, it has
been contended that there was a substantial breach of the terms or
conditions of the said insurance policy and hence, the insurance company
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 21 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:38:51
+0530
has no liability to make the payment of compensation amount.
The sole contention raised by the insurance company in this regard is
that the offending vehicle in this case happened to be a tractor trolley and
the trolley attached with the tractor at the time of the accident was not
insured. It has been further contended that the insurance premium was paid
only for the insurance of the tractor and not for the trolley attached with the
said tractor. However, it is pertinent to note that as per the FIR pertaining to
the criminal case in respect of the accident in question, the offending
vehicle had hit the Samosa cart of the father of the victim after coming from
the opposite side of the road. The respondent no. 3 has neither pleaded nor
proved that the accident which resulted into the injury to the victim was
caused entirely on account of the trolley attached with the tractor.
Moreover, in such circumstances, the position of the law in this regard has
been specifically laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as:
“The Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Honnamma &
Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 2135 of 2023 wherein it has been held that:-
“Ultimately the root cause of the accident being the tractor,
which was insured, this crucial fact cannot be lost sight of. For
further clarification, we might illustrate: if an insured vehicle hits
another vehicle which in turn hits a third vehicle, then for the entire
chain of accidents, the liability would pass on to the vehicle which
was the root cause of the accident because it is the result of the
action in the same chain of events which cannot be segregated or
compartmentalized. Moreover, this Court is duty-bound to be
mindful of the ground realities of our nation and cannot let
practicality be overshadowed by technicality. We feel that the law
has been correctly appreciated by a learned Single Judge of this
Court in Gunti Devaiah v. Vaka Peddi Reddy (supra) and the
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 22 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:38:55
+0530
reasons given by him are sufficient to hold that under the Motor
Vehicles Act no separate insurance is contemplated for a trailer and
when the trailer is attached to the tractor which is insured, it
becomes the part of the tractor. We reproduce the Para 26 of the
said judgment as under: “The word “vehicle” mentioned in Section
147 is co-relatable to the word motor vehicles, which is stipulated
in Section 146. Therefore, the expression vehicle wherever
appearing in Chapter X(XI) has to be only read as motor vehicle.
The principle of claim for compensation in accidents arising out of
the use of the motor vehicle is based on tortuous liability and the
negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle is a sine quo non for
maintaining a claim under the provisions of the Act. Inasmuch as
the trailer by itself cannot be driven and it has to be carried or
towed with a motor vehicle namely a tractor or a like self-propelled
vehicles. Therefore, the question of driving the trailer in a rash and
negligent manner would not arise. It is only the prime mover or the
motor vehicle which controls movement of the tractor and in case
of the negligence driving of the trailer or the motor vehicle, the
owner of the vehicle and its insurer alone will be made liable for
payment of compensation. But, since the trailer is attached can it be
said that trailer should also be independently insured so as to avoid
the liability of compensation in case of rash and negligent driving
by the driver. That contingency would not arise, as it is only a
vehicle and not a motor vehicle. It may be for tax purposes, it is
treated as a goods vehicle. But, under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, no separate insurance is contemplated. When the
trailer is attached to the tractor it becomes a tractor-trailer. There is
no provision requiring the trailer to be separately insured to cover
the third party risk. The reasons are obvious that it cannot be driven
by the driver as in the case of motor vehicles or tractors. Thus, a
separate distinction has been drawn between the motor vehicle and
a vehicle i.e., visible in all the definitions and more especially in
Chapter XI. The same situation also persists in Chapter X in case ofMACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 23 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:39:00
+0530
no fault liability wherein it has been stated that whether a death or a
permanent disability of any person has been resulted from an
accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles
and there is no reference to vehicle as such. This aspect was never
considered in any of the decisions relied on by the learned Standing
Counsel for the Insurance Company and also for other side.”
As far as the present case is concerned, there is no material on record
to show that the injury to the injured was caused due to trolley as a vehicle
on its own.
37. Therefore, in view of the afore-said facts and circumstances and
especially the failure on part of the insurance company in leading sufficient
evidence to prove its contentions, the Tribunal has no hesitation in hereby
arriving at the finding that the liability to make the payment of
compensation amount is indeed of the R3 i.e. insurance company on behalf
of R1 and R2 and that too without any recovery rights. The issue at hand is
accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner/injured and against the
respondent no. 3.
RELIEF
38. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the victim/ injured
Atul is hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 6,25,708/- (Rupees Six Lakh Twenty
Five Thousand Seven Hundred Eight Only) along with interest @ 8% per
annum from the date of filing of DAR petition till its deposition by the
insurer i.e. respondent no. 3. However, it is directed that the amount of
interim award along with waiver of interest, if any, shall be excluded from
the above amount and calculations of compensation.
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 24 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:39:05
+0530
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONER
39. Finally, out of the awarded amount, the injured namely Atul is
awarded a sum of Rs.6,25,708/-, out of which Rs. 5,00,000/- is directed to
be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing
account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in MACAD in an
FDR till the date he attains age of maturity, as per the scheme formulated by
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No.
842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The
amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his savings/MACT
Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi.
Moreover, the remaining amount of Rs.1,25,708/- and the interest
component to be paid by the R3 i.e. insurance company is directed to be
released into the savings account of father of victim/injured namely Bhura
(injured being minor and represented through his father/natural guardian)
which can be withdrawn and utilized by him as per his volition.
40. The FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to
the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody
and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner/injured with the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 25 of 27
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2026.05.14
16:39:09
+0530
fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to
claimant / his guardian. 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.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant 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.
41. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to
deposit the award amount with interest @ 8% per annum till date with UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing
which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the
period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court
Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioner/injured in his
bank account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the
said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode
every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that
the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the
cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi
District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
42. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of
the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner/injured and also
to counsel for the respondents/insurance company for compliance. Copy of
this award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 26 of 27
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2026.05.14
16:39:14
+0530
passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioner/injured, be sent to
Nodal Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for
information and necessary compliance. Digitally signed
by HARUN
Announced in open Court on this HARUN PRATAPPRATAP Date:
14th Day of May, 2026 2026.05.14
16:39:19 +0530
(HARUN PRATAP)
PO-(MACT-02), SHAHDARA
KKD COURTS/DELHI
MACT No. 199/23 DAR- BHURA Vs. NADEEM & ORS. Page No. 27 of 27
