Delhi District Court
Dar-Kalu Ram vs Arun Verma And Ors on 19 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of :
Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors.
MACT no. 642/2022
Kalu Ram (Injured)
S/o Sh. Ram Asre
R/o 525/24, Village Khera, G.T. Road,
M.S. Park, Shahdara, Delhi. ..........................Petitioner
Versus
1). Arun Verma (Driver)
S/o Sh. Shanti Swaroop Verma
R/o A-31, Chander Lok, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
2). Navdeep Singh (Regd. Owner)
S/o Sh. Gurmukh Singh
R/o 1/2234, East Ram Nagar, near Durga Mandir,
Shahdara, Delhi.
3). Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Insurer)
A-12, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. .......................Respondents
Date of institution : 25.11.2022
Final arguments heard : 18.07.2025
Date of Award : 19.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present DAR (Detailed Accident Report) which was treated as
claim petition under sections 166(4) of ‘Motor Vehicle Act, 1988‘ on
behalf of the petitioner for grant of compensation, was filed by the
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 1 of 25 Pages
Investigating Agency in respect of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner Kalu Ram in a motor vehicular accident occurred within
the jurisdiction of PS M.S. Park, Delhi.
2. The material facts of the case as emerged from the DAR are that on
04.02.2022 at about 10:00 p.m., the petitioner Kalu Ram while
driving his e-rickshaw bearing no. DL5ER-6079, was going from
Nathu Colony towards Shahdara to pick up the passengers and when
he reached near Loha Mandi, Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi, a
black colour Creta car bearing no. DL3CCU-5588 (hereinafter,
“offending vehicle”) being driven by the respondent no.1 Arun
Verma at a high speed, rashly and negligently, came from the
opposite side and hit his e-rickshaw from front. As a result, the left
leg of the petitioner came under the e-rickshaw due to which the
petitioner received grievous injuries. The public persons gathered
and got the offending vehicle stopped. PCR came and removed the
injured to GTB Hospital, where he was medically examined vide
MLC no. C/061413/2022.
3. In connection with the accident, FIR no.156/2022, under sections
279/337 IPC, was registered at PS M.S. Park, Delhi. After
completion of the investigation, charge-sheet for offences under
sections 279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act was filed
before the concerned court against the respondent no.1 and the
present DAR against the respondents was filed before this Tribunal.
4. At the time of the filing of the DAR, all the respondents appeared.
The respondents were directed to file their written-statements,
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 2 of 25 Pages
however, written-statement was filed only on behalf of the
respondent no.3/ insurance company. Respondent no.1 and 2 failed
to file their written-statement despite sufficient opportunity and
therefore, their opportunity to file a written-statement was closed on
24.07.2023.
5. In the written-statement filed on behalf of respondent no.3/ insurance
company, it has been contended that the driver/ respondent no.1 was
not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of
accident because as per DAR, the driving license of the driver/
respondent no.1 Arun Verma on verification was found to be fake
and accordingly, the driver/ respondent no.1 has been charge-sheeted
for the offence under section 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act also, which
shows the violation of the relevant term/ condition of the insurance
policy and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any
compensation. Further, it is contended that both the vehicles
involved in the accident, as per their mechanical inspection reports,
suffered front side damage, which shows the head on collision and
therefore, 50% contributory negligence on the part of each driver is
required to be taken into consideration while deciding the case.
6. Upon pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 24.07.2023,
following issues were framed:
1. Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident
occurred on 04.02.2022 at about 10:00 p.m., at Mandoli
Road, near Loha Mandi, M.S. Park, within the jurisdiction
of PS M.S. Park, due to rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle bearing no. DL3CCU-5588, being driven by
respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 3 of 25 Pages
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to
what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
7. In order to establish his claim, the petitioner got examined the
following witnesses:
(a) PW1 Kalu Ram, the petitioner was examined through Court
Commissioner, who was appointed vide order dated 20.02.2024
(refer: Gohar Mohammed v. U.P. SRTC, (2023) 4 SCC 381). He
testified on the strength of his affidavits Ex.PW1/A regarding the
manner of accident, injuries sustained, treatment taken and losses
suffered as a result of the accident and relied upon the documents
Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/10.
(b) Dr. Rahul Kumar, Senior Resident, Orthopaedic Department,
GTB Hospital, Delhi, proved the disability certificate, dated
14.03.2024, issued to the petitioner as Ex.PW2/1, as per which
the petitioner was assessed to have suffered 27% permanent
disability in relation to left lower limb as well as upper limb.
8. On the other hand, on behalf of the insurance company/ respondent
no.3 examined the following witness :
(a) R3W1 Sh. Parth Arya, Deputy Manager (Legal) of the insurance
company, deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.R3W1/A and relied
upon the documents Ex.R3W1/1 to Ex.R3W1/4.
9. No other witness was examined and, therefore, respondents’
evidence was closed on 31.01.2025.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 4 of 25 Pages
10. I have heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsels for
the parties and also perused the evidence and other materials placed
on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
04.02.2022 at about 10:00 p.m., at Mandoli Road, near Loha Mandi,
M.S. Park, within the jurisdiction of PS M.S. Park, due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle bearing no. DL3CCU-5588, being
driven by respondent no.1/ driver? OPP
11. It is settled proposition of law that, 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 to
be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A
holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition
based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in
an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. However, that does not
mean that a Tribunal which has been approached with a claim for
compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act should ignore all basic
principles of law in determining the claim for compensation. The
relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to jettison all
principles of law relating to a claim for compensation, which is still
based on a tortious liability. Reference may be made to the
judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani
& Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012; Bimla
Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others
(2009) 13 SC 530; Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1)
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 5 of 25 Pages
SCR 1096; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others
2018, Law Suit (SC) 303; & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena
Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428.
12. In the case in hand, the only witness with respect to the manner and
mode of accident which happened on 04.02.2022 is the petitioner
Kalu Ram, who as PW1 has deposed by way of his affidavit
Ex.PW1/A that on 04.02.2022 at about 10:00 p.m. in the night, he
was going from Nathu Colony Chowk towards Shahdara Metro
Station to get passengers while driving e-rickshaw bearing no.
DL5ER-6079 on the correct side of the road, following the rules of
road at a slow speed, quite cautiously via Mandoli Road and when he
reached near Loha Mandi, suddenly, a car bearing registration no.
DL3CCU-5588 being driven by respondent no.1 at a very high
speed, rashly, negligently and without following the traffic rules
came from the wrong side and hit him with a great force. As a result,
he (petitioner) fell on the road and his rickshaw turned upside down
and his left leg got crushed under the rickshaw and he sustained
multiple grievous injuries. In support of his testimony, the petitioner
PW1 relied upon the following documents:-
(i) The DAR as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
(ii) Copy of Aadhaar Card & PAN Card of the petitioner as
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR) (colly.-2 sheets).
(iii) Copy of treatment documents as Ex.PW1/3 (colly.-19 sheets).
(iv) Copy of medical bills as Ex.PW1/4 (colly.-3 sheets).
(v) Copy of driving license of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/5 (OSR).
(vi) Copy of driver’s badge as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 6 of 25 Pages
(vii) Copy of RC of e-rickshaw of the petitioner as Ex.PW1/7
(OSR).
(viii) Photograph of injury already on record as Ex.PW1/8.
(ix) Copy of educational documents of the petitioner as
Ex.PW1/9 (colly.-3 sheets).
(x) Copy of bill of repair of e-rickshaw as Ex.PW1/10.
13. PW1 has been cross-examined by learned counsel for the insurance
company. In the cross-examination, the petitioner (PW1) was given a
suggestion that it was a head on collusion and said suggestion was
duly admitted by the petitioner, which itself establishes the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question.
Also, the deposition of the petitioner with respect to rash and
negligent driving of the respondent no.1 and thereby causing the
accident of the petitioner, is found to have not been controverted in
his cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the
insurance company. Further, in the entire cross-examination of the
petitioner (PW1), this Tribunal finds nothing which may demolish or
discredit his testimony with respect to the mode and manner of the
accident as deposed by him.
14. The version of the petitioner qua occurrence of the accident due to
rash/ negligent driving of respondent no.1 is also found corroborated
and supported from the DAR comprising FIR, Site Plan, Mechanical
Inspection Reports and Seizure Memos of both the vehicles involved
in the accident, MLC of the injured/ petitioner and charge-sheet. As
per FIR, the offending vehicle was found at the spot of accident in
accidental condition and its driver/ respondent no.1 was also caught
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 7 of 25 Pages
by the public persons, who handed him over to police.
15. Not only this, respondent no.1 was charge-sheeted for commission of
offence under sections 279/338/471 IPC and 3/181 Motor Vehicle
Act in the criminal case by the police after detailed investigation and
in a motor vehicle accident claim case, the contents of charge-sheet
support the version of petitioner regarding rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
16. Moreover, there is no challenge from the respondent no.1/ driver of
the offending vehicle to the version of the petitioner. The respondent
no.1 was the best witness, who could have stepped into the witness
box to challenge the testimony of the petitioner regarding the mode
and manner of the accident but he preferred not to enter into the
witness box during the course of inquiry. Even the insurance
company did not make any effort to summon the respondent no.1 in
the witness box to prove the contention as taken by the insurance
company in its written statement with respect to the contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner, if any, in happening of the
accident. Thus, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn to the
effect that the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by him in view of the law laid down
in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Kamlesh, 2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.
17. The MLC of the petitioner, prepared at GTB Hospital, Delhi, which
is part of the DAR, clearly shows the history of RTA and the injuries
received by the petitioner have been opined to be grievous in nature.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 8 of 25 Pages
18. In view of the above, it is held that petitioner has been able to
establish on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities that he
had sustained grievous injuries in the present motor vehicular
accident, which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by the respondent no.1. Issue no.1 is, accordingly,
decided in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO.2
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom? OPP
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
19. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, enjoins 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 a windfall or a
bonanza nor it should be a pittance. “Just compensation” cannot be
equated with bonanza but it suggests application of fair and equitable
principles and reasonable approach of the Tribunal while awarding
the compensation. This reasonableness must be on large peripheral
field. A man is not compensated for the physical injury which he
might have received in the accident caused by the motor vehicle in a
public place, rather he is compensated for the loss, which he suffered
as a result of that injury that he suffered in the accident. [Ref. Yadava
Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 34; Raj
Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343; Puttamma v. K.L.
Narayana Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 45].
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 9 of 25 Pages
20. The 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. 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.
21. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to
which the petitioner is entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses
22. The petitioner/ injured (PW1) has placed the original medical bills
on record for a total sum of Rs.6,023/- with respect to his treatment.
The petitioner has also proved copies of these bills as Ex.PW1/4
(colly) and the same are found in order and further, the same has not
been disputed on behalf of the insurance company during cross-
examination of PW1. Hence, a sum of Rs.6,023/- is granted to the
petitioner under this head.
Loss of Earning During Treatment
23. As per medical treatment record Ex.PW1/3 (colly), after the accident
on 04.02.2022 at 10:00 p.m., the petitioner was taken to GTB
Hospital, Delhi, where he remained admitted from 05.02.2022 to
09.02.2022. The petitioner was diagnosed to have suffered ‘fracture
of open III-a tibial pilon with segmental fibula with No DNVD”.
During hospitalization, to treat the said fracture, a surgical procedure
was performed on 06.02.2022 when ‘WD+WL+bridgery plate for
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 10 of 25 Pages
fibula+ medial based across ankle fixator’ was applied. After
discharge from hospital, treatment of the petitioner continued in OPD
of GTB Hospital. Again, the petitioner remained hospitalized in GTB
Hospital from 21.07.2023 to 25.07.2023 and during this
hospitalization, on 22.07.2023, ‘distractor application’ was done and
thereafter, his OPD treatment continued till November-2023 as per
treatment record. Thus, considering the nature of injury and above
treatment record, it may be safely assumed that the petitioner must
not have been able to do any work for the period for which he
remained under treatment i.e., from the date of accident (04.02.2022)
till November-2023, which comes to 21 months. Hence, petitioner is
entitled to be compensated for the loss of income of said period
during treatment.
24. The petitioner (PW1) has deposed that prior to the accident; he was
working as e-rickshaw driver and was earning Rs.35,000/- per
month. Though no documentary evidence has been placed on record
by the petitioner to prove his income, however, the documents i.e.,
driving license Ex.PW1/5, Driver’s Badge Ex.PW1/6 and
Registration Certificate of e-rickshaw Ex.PW1/7 fully support his
vocation of being an e-rickshaw driver i.e., a skilled worker. Further,
a certificate of having passed Secondary School Examination has
also been proved on record as Ex.PW1/9, which shows that the
petitioner was a matriculate. As per Aadhaar Card Ex.PW1/2 and
Driving License Ex.PW1/5, the petitioner was a Delhi resident. In
these circumstances, in absence of any documentary evidence in
support of exact income of the petitioner, his income has to be
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 11 of 25 Pages
assessed at par with minimum wages applicable to skilled/
matriculate category of workers of Delhi as on the date of accident
(04.02.2022), which were Rs.19,473/- per month. Thus, the income
of the deceased is assessed as Rs.19,473/- per month. Accordingly, a
sum of Rs.4,08,891/- (19,473×21) is granted to the petitioner on
account of loss of income of 21 months during treatment.
Loss of Future Earnings (Due to Disability)
25. As per disability certificate bearing no.301/84/03/2024, dated
14.03.2024, issued by the Medical Board of GTB Hospital, which
has been proved on record by PW2 Dr. Rahul Kumar as Ex.PW2/1,
the petitioner was assessed to have suffered 27% permanent
disability in relation to left lower limb as well as left upper limb.
PW2 (doctor) stated that the cause of disability was a fracture of both
bones of the left leg and left distal end radius.
26. The disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different
aspects and not substitute for each other and the loss of income has
to be seen considering the profession in which the petitioner was
engaged at the time of the accident.
27. It is evident that prior to the accident, the petitioner was engaged in
the work of driving an e-rickshaw. Now, it has to be seen as to how
and up to what extent his work would affect due to the aforesaid
permanent disability. On this aspect, though the doctor (PW2) opined
that the person who was driving an e-rickshaw would have no
difficulty in driving e-rickshaw with the permanent disability as
stated above, however, at the same time, the doctor (PW2) stated that
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 12 of 25 Pages
the petitioner will face difficulty in climbing stairs, taking turns and
squatting besides facing difficulty in ambulation (mobility). These
findings of the doctor clearly indicate that the 27% permanent
disability of left lower limb as well as left upper limb, which the
petitioner, who was a self-employed person only and was not
employed as regular or permanent worker anywhere, has suffered as
a result of the present accident, would definitely create difficulty for
him from earning his livelihood by performing any other skilled or
unskilled nature of work under self-employment requiring strength
of left lower limb as well as left upper limb. In view of the above,
this Tribunal is of the opinion that functional disability in relation to
the whole body of the petitioner may be considered up to 15% for the
purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future income.
28. Further, the law is well settled that there should be no departure from
the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja
vs. Atul Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. The Secondary School
Examination Certificate (Ex.PW1/9) of the petitioner reveals his date
of birth as 10.07.1967, which would mean that he was 54 years of
age on the date of accident (04.02.2022) and thus, a multiplier of 11
as applicable to age group between 51-55 years would be applicable
as per settled principle laid down in case of Sarla Verma v. DTC
(2009) 6 SCC 121. Moreover, the law has been well settled by the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sandeep Khanuja
(supra) and Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express Transport Corporation
Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine SC 601, that while applying the multiplier
method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 13 of 25 Pages
to be taken into consideration. Thus, considering the petitioner a self-
employed, belonging to age group between 50-60 years, an addition
of income to the extent of 10% towards future prospects has to be
counted.
29. As discussed above, the income of the petitioner has been assessed
Rs.19,473/- per month. Thus, applying the multiplier of 11 and future
prospects @ 10% with 15% loss of income on account of whole-
body functional disability, the total loss of future income would
come to Rs.4,24,122/- [15% of (19,473x12x110/100×11)] and the
same is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Special Diet
30. The MLC of the petitioner, which is part of the DAR Ex.PW1/1
(colly) makes it clear that he received grievous injuries in the
accident. The treatment record Ex.PW1/3 (colly) shows that he
remained hospitalized on two occasions, when he had to undergo
surgical procedures and implant was fixed and his further treatment
also continued for a long period. Considering the nature of injury and
the period of treatment, it can be safely inferred that the petitioner
had to spend a reasonable amount on high and rich protein diet for
the purpose of early recovery, especially post surgery. Hence, a sum
of Rs.50,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Conveyance Charges
31. The treatment record Ex.PW1/3 (colly) shows that apart from being
hospitalized on two occasions, i.e., from 05.02.2022 to 09.02.2022
and then from 21.07.2023 to 25.07.2023, the petitioner also remained
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 14 of 25 Pages
under OPD treatment for a long period. As per treatment record, the
petitioner had to make a number of visits for his further treatment in
the OPD of GTB Hospital on 18.02.2022, 25.02.2022, 04.03.2022,
25.03.2022, 01.04.2022, 05.04.2022, 24.05.2022, 10.06.2022,
17.06.2022, 21.06.2022, 24.06.2022, 28.06.2022, 01.07.2022,
05.07.2022, 08.07.2022, 12.07.2022, 15.07.2022, 19.07.2022,
02.08.2022, 30.08.2022, 02.09.2022, 06.12.2022, 28.02.2022,
03.03.2023, 11.04.2023, 25.04.2023 and 04.07.2023. Thus, it is
safely assumed that the petitioner had to spend a reasonable amount
on transportation for visiting the hospital. Hence, a sum of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Attendant Charges
32. Considering the nature of the injury and period of treatment, the
petitioner is also required to be granted attendant charges to
compensate the work/ job of his family members, which would
definitely have suffered in providing assistance to him in his routine
activities during treatment period (Refer: DTC & Ors Vs. Lalita,
1983 ACJ 253). The petitioner remained under treatment for a period
of about 21 months. Hence, assuming the attendant charges @
Rs.5,000/- per month, a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- is granted to the
petitioner under this head.
Damages to e-Rickshaw
33. The petitioner has placed on record the payment receipt of
Rs.17,000/- qua expenses incurred on repair of the damages suffered
by the e-rickshaw in the accident and proved the same as
Ex.PW1/10. The mechanical inspection report of the e-rickshaw of
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 15 of 25 Pages
the petitioner shows that it got damaged in the accident. In view of
this, the petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for the repair charges,
which he had to incur for getting his e-rickshaw repaired and
therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,000/-
for the same.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Pain & Sufferings
34. The MLC of the petitioner shows that the petitioner received the
following injuries: (i) laceration 2×1 c.m. above ankle joint left foot,
and (ii) laceration 2×1 c.m. on left lower leg. The MLC further
shows that, as per ortho notes, the injuries so received by the
petitioner were opined to be grievous in nature. He remained
admitted in hospital on two occasions, i.e., from 05.02.2022 to
09.02.2022 and then from 21.07.2023 to 25.07.2023. He was
diagnosed to have suffered ‘fracture of open IIIa tibial pilon with
segmental fibula’. His further treatment continued till November
2023. Thus, it is clear that due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, the petitioner/ injured must have gone through immense
pain and suffering for a long span of period during his treatment and
therefore, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under
this head.
Loss of Amenities
35. It is evident that even after completion of treatment, the petitioner
suffered 27% permanent disability in relation to his left lower limb
as well as left upper limb. The doctor (PW2) made it clear that, due
to the aforesaid disability, the petitioner will face slight difficulty in
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 16 of 25 Pages
climbing stairs, taking turns and squatting and he will also face slight
difficulty in ambulation (mobility). In view of this, it may be safely
assumed that with the aforementioned disability, petitioner is bound
to face difficulties throughout his life and will not be able to enjoy
the amenities of life to the fullest. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-
is granted to the petitioner under this head.
36. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized as
under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs.6,023/-
2. Loss of Earnings (During Treatment) Rs.4,08,891/-
3. Loss of Future Earnings (Due to Disability) Rs.4,24,122/-
4. Special Diet Rs.50,000/-
5. Conveyance Charges Rs.50,000/-
6. Attendant Charges Rs.1,05,000/-
7. Damages to e-Rickshaw Rs.17,000/-
8. Pain & Sufferings Rs.1,50,000/-
9. Loss of Amenities Rs.1,50,000/-
Total Rs.13,61,036/-
Accordingly, the compensation in this case comes to Rs.13,61,036/-.
INTEREST
37. The petitioner shall also be entitled for interest @ 7% per annum on
the award amount from the date of filing of the DAR till realization.
LIABILITY
38. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondents is liable to
pay the compensation amount. The insurance company has
contractual and statutory liability to indemnify the insured in case the
insurance company has not been able to prove on record that any
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 17 of 25 Pages
term or condition of insurance policy was breached/ violated by
insured.
39. In this case, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued
that, as per DAR, the driving license of the driver/ respondent no.1
on verification was found fake, which shows that the respondent no.1
was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective
driving license, which is the violation of the Driver’s Clause of the
insurance policy and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay any
compensation. In support to his arguments, he has relied upon the
deposition of R3W1 Sh. Parth Arya, Deputy Manager (Legal) of the
insurance, who has proved the following documents:
(i) The office copy of notice under order 12 Rule 8 CPC, sent to
the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.R3W1/1.
(ii) The original postal receipts with respect to above notice sent
to the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.
(iii) The internet tracking report as Ex.R3W1/3.
(iv) Attested copy of insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/4 (2 sheets).
(v) The DAR, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 (colly).
40. Also, I have perused the charge-sheet, which is part of the DAR filed
in this case. Charge-sheet makes it clear that, during investigation,
driving license no. NT-17840 of the driver/ respondent no.1 Arun
Verma was got verified by the concerned Licensing Authority and
the same was found fake and accordingly, the driver/ respondent no.1
has also been charge-sheeted for the offence under section 471 IPC
and 3/181 Motor Vehicle Act.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 18 of 25 Pages
41. It is evident that the driver/ respondent no.1 did not file any written
statement challenging the version that the driving license which he
was holding at the time of the accident was not fake nor he adduced
any evidence in his defence. Moreover, the registered owner/
respondent no.2 also did not lead any evidence to show that the
driver/ respondent no.1 had shown him any driving license or that he
had taken any driving test of the driver/ respondent no.1 while
employing him. Accordingly, it is held that respondent no.1/ driver
was driving the offending vehicle without a valid and effective
Driving License at the time of accident and therefore, violation of the
Driver’s Clause of the insurance policy stands proved on record.
42. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that, in order to serve the ends of
justice in the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent
no.3/ insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation
and thereafter, it should recover the same from the owner and driver.
Accordingly, it is held that respondent no.3/ insurance company shall
deposit the awarded amount with this Tribunal and thereafter, it shall
be entitled to get the paid amount recovered from respondents no.1
and 2, jointly and/ or severally, in accordance with law.
RELIEF
43. In the light of the decision on substantive issues framed, the present
claim petition is allowed and the following award is being passed:
AWARD
44. This Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.13,61,036/- (Rs. Thirteen
Lakh Sixty-One Thousand Thirty-Six Only) to the petitioner along
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 19 of 25 Pages
with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR
(25.11.2022) till realization to be paid by the insurance company,
which shall have the right to recover the paid amount from
respondent no.1 and 2, jointly and/ or severally, in accordance with
law. The interim compensation, if any, shall be adjusted against this
award amount along with the waiver of interest, if any, as directed by
the Tribunal during the pendency of this case.
45. The insurance company/ respondent no.3 is directed to deposit the
award amount in A/c no.20780110171912 (IFSC Code
UCBA0002078), UCO Bank, Karkardooma, Delhi, of PO MACT,
Shahdara, through RTGS/ NEFT, within 30 days from today.
Disbursement of Award Amount
46. It is directed that after deposit of the award amount of Rs.13,61,036/-
along with interest, a sum of Rs.2,61,036/- along with the
corresponding interest shall be released forthwith to the petitioner by
way of transferring the said amount into his MACT Saving Bank
Account and the rest of the award Rs.11 Lakhs along with the
corresponding interest shall be kept secured in the form of 50
monthly FDRs payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 50
months in succession, as per the scheme formulated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in FAO No. 84/2003,
titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Others v. Jaibir Singh & Others. The
amount of FDRs on maturity would directly be released in
petitioner’s MACT Saving Bank Account.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 20 of 25 Pages
Direction to the Petitioner & his Bank
47. The petitioner shall open a saving bank account near the place of his
residence. Further, the bank of petitioner is directed to comply with
the following conditions: –
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the
savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e.,
the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an individual
savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by
the bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System
(ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s) near the place of
their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant(s)
near the place of their residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits 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 the claimant(s) shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for
compliance.
48. As per Annexure-XIII of ‘The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989,
the relevant Form to be incorporated in the award is as under:
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 21 of 25 Pages
FORM -XVI
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES
TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 04.02.2022
2. Name of the injured : Kalu Ram
3. Age of the injured : 54 years (at the time of the accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Self-employed
5. Income of the injured : Rs.19,473/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured : Hospitalization & OPD treatment
8. Period of hospitalization : (i) 05.02.2022 to 09.02.2022
(ii) 21.07.2023 to 25.07.2023
9. Whether any permanent disability? : 27% in relation to left lower limb and
(If yes, give details) left upper limb
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.6,023/- (ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/- (iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/- (iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.1,05,000/- (v) Cost of artificial limb Not applicable (vi) Loss of earning capacity -- (vii) Loss of income (during treatment) Rs.4,08,891/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require Not applicable
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs.1,50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Not applicable
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 22 of 25 Pages
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Not applicable
(vi) Loss of earning, 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 assessed and 27% in relation to left lower limb
nature of disability as permanent or and left upper limb
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of As per column no. 12(iii) above
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 15% functional disability
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – Rs.4,24,122/-
(Income x% Earning Capacity x
Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.13,61,036/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED @ 7% per annum
16. Interest amount up to date of award Rs.2,52,473/-
(for 02 years, 07 months & 24 days)
17. Total amount including interest Rs.16,13,509/-
18. Award amount released Rs.2,61,036/- along with
corresponding interest
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.11,00,000/- along with
corresponding interest
20. Mode of disbursements of the award Bank Transfer
amount to the claimants(s).
21. Next Date for compliance of award. 02.09.2025
FORM – XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1 Date of Accident 04.02.2022
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 23 of 25 Pages
2 Date of filing of Form-I- First Accident Report Not available
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) Not available
4 Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver Not available
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner Not available
6 Date of filing of the Form-V- Interim Accident Not available
Report (IAR)
7 Date of receipt of Form-VI- and Form-VIA Not available
from the victims(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII- Detailed Accident Not available
Report (DAR)
9 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not available
by the Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his report within
thirty (30) days of the DAR?
12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the claimant(s) to the offer Legal offer not filed
of the Insurance Company
14 Date of Award 19.07.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near the place of
residence?
16 Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN Card and Aadhaar
Card and the direction to the bank to not issue
any cheque book/ debit card to the claimant(s)
and make an endorsement to this effect on the
passbook.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 24 of 25 Pages
17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the To be produced at the
passbook of their saving bank account near the time of compliance of
place of their residence along with the award
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhaar Card?
18 Permanent Residential Address of the 525/24, Village Khera,
claimant(s) G.T. Road,
M.S. Park, Shahdara,
Delhi.
19 Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Direction given
is near his place of residence?
20 Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the No
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/her/ their financial condition?
49. With these observations, the claim petition/ DAR is disposed of. File
be consigned to Record Room. VIJAY Digitally signed
by VIJAY KUMAR
KUMAR JHA
Date: 2025.07.19
JHA 15:16:23 +0530
Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA)
Court on 19.07.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara)
Karkardooma, Delhi
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 642/2022; Kalu Ram v. Arun Verma & Ors. 25 of 25 Pages
