Delhi District Court
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal on 26 July, 2025
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 1 of48
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 612/19
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-007254-2022
Dinesh Dua
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Dua
R/o RU-303, Pitampura, Delhi
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Vipin Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Narender Aggarwal
R/o H-16, Kasturba Apartment,
near Deepali Chowk, Pitampura, Delhi
....... Driver/R1
2. Puneet Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Narender Aggarwal
R/o BD-4, 2nd Floor,
Pitampura, Delhi
....... Owner/R2
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi, Mumbai
........Insurance Company/R3
..... Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 23.07.2022
RESERVING JUDGMENT : 25.07.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
Page 1 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 2 of48
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 27.10.2021
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 23.07.2022
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 23.07.2022
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not available on
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan record
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 23.07.2022
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 23.07.2022
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 23.07.2022
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 23.07.2022
Officer by the insurance Company.
Page 2 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 3 of48
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. R.K. Gupta,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or N/A
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Legal offer filed
the offer of the Insurance Company . but not accepted
18. Date of the Award 26.07.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 18.03.2024
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 21.10.2024
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
Page 3 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 4 of48
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner Dinesh
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Dua, Savings
with IFSC Code Bank A/c
No.43258073792
, SBI, Rohini
Courts Branch,
Delhi,
IFSC :
SBIN0010323
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as
DAR), was filed in this case on 23.07.2022, with reference
to FIR No. 1141/21, U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Maurya Enclave,
Delhi, in respect of simple hurt, sustained by the petitioner
namely Dinesh Dua, in a road traffic accident, on
27.10.2021, at about 11.45 am, in front of BD Block, on
road, Pitampura, Delhi. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed
Page 4 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 5 of48
by the IO, against Vipin Aggarwal S/o Sh. Narender
Aggarwal (hereinafter referred as the driver/respondent
no.1/R1), for the alleged commission of offence U/s
279/338 IPC, as the injuries sustained by the petitioner, was
opined to be grievous in nature. The Ld. Predecessor of this
Tribunal, vide order dated 23.07.2022, treated the DAR, as
claim petition U/s 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act).
2. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR,
including the documents annexed with the DAR, are that,
on 27.10.2021, the petitioner Dinesh Dua S/o Late Sh. Om
Prakash Dua (hereinafter referred as the
claimant/petitioner/injured), was going to Patel Nagar, via
Power House Road, on his Scooty, bearing registration No.
DL-11D-9476 (hereinafter referred to as the victim’s
vehicle), and at about 11.45 am, when he reached in front of
BD Block, HDFC Bank, Pitampura, Delhi, he was hit, by
one Car, bearing registration no. DL-8CAF-3699
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), which was
driven in reverse (back-side), in a rash and negligent
manner, by its driver/R1 Vipin Aggarwal S/o Narender
Aggarwal. It was further averred that as a result of the said
impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained
injuries. It was further averred that the driver of the
offending vehicle, took him to Muni Mayaram Hospital,
Pitampura, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Muni Mayaram
Hospital) and in the meanwhile, one of his known person
Page 5 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 6 of48
has called the police. It was further averred that thereafter,
police officials came at Muni Maya Ram Hospital and the
petitioner handed over R1 to the police. It was further
averred that the petitioner was given first aid, at the said
hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Dr.Baba Sahab
Ambedkar Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as BSA Hospital), where he was medically
examined, vide MLC, bearing No. 27040/2021, as per
which, injuries sustained by the petitioner, was opined to be
grievous in nature.
3. As per DAR, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was driven by R1, the same was registered in the name of
Puneet Aggarwal S/o Sh. Narender Aggarwal (hereinafter
referred to as owner/respondent no.2/R2) and was insured
with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred as insurance company/R3), vide Policy
No. 3001/202185933/01/000, for the period 17.07.20121 to
16.07.2022.
4. R1 and R2 have filed their joint written statement, wherein
they both raised the defence, that the accident has taken
place, due to rash and negligent act, on the part of the
petitioner. It was further stated that on 27.10.2021, R1 was
coming from his brother’s house, at BD Block, Pitampura,
Delhi and was driving towards his house, at Kasturba
Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi and while driving, suddenly
a street dog came in front of his vehicle and he applied
Page 6 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 7 of48
brakes, with all due precautions, but, the petitioner who was
coming from behind, at a very high speed, on his Scooty,
hit their car from behind. It was further stated that at the
time of accident, the petitioner was not wearing helmet and
R1 was driving his vehicle diligently and properly. It was
further stated that as per FIR, the allegations against R1 is
that he reversed (back side) the car and hit the petitioner
but, in the Form-XII (Victim Impact Report), at point 56
(iv), (ix) and (xiv), it has been mentioned by the IO, that
respondent no.1 was involved in criss cross driving, driving
close to vehicle in front and exceeding speed limit, which
itself shows that there are clear contradictions in the report
filed by the IO, with FIR lodged. It was further stated that
R1 made all efforts, to save the collision but, the petitioner
was driving his Scooty, at a very high speed and he did not
apply brakes on time and collided with the car of R1. It was
further stated that R1 still cared to take the injured to the
hospital, in his car and co-operated in investigation thereby,
discharging his duty under Section 132 and 134 of M.V.
Act. It was further stated that it was the duty of the
petitioner, to slow down his Scooty and keep his eyes
continuously on the road, while driving, but he was
negligent, due to which collision happened. They further
stated that R1 was holding valid driving license, at the time
of accident and the car was also fully insured with ICICI
Lombard. It was further stated that site plan filed by IO, is
false and fabricated and have been prepared in most casual
and routine manner because, as per the allegations
Page 7 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 8 of48
mentioned in FIR, R1 hit the vehicle of the petitioner, while
reversing the car and the site plan filed by the IO, shows
that the scooty has been hit from the back, which in itself is
contradictory. It was further stated that the IO in
connivance with the petitioner, in a casual and routine
manner, had made respondents as an accused. It was further
stated that it is apparent in DAR, as the events and way of
driving mentioned, did not even tally with the FIR filed,
which also shows the collision of the IO, with the
petitioner, to provide him undue gain.
5. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd./R3, has
filed a legal offer, wherein R3 offered to pay compensation
of Rs. 82,000/-, to the petitioner. However, the said legal
offer has not been accepted by the petitioner and the matter
was proceeded further.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated
19.12.2022:-
1. Whether on 27.10.2021 at about 11.45 am, at BD Block
HDFC Bank, Pitampura, Delhi, one car bearing
registration no. DL8C-AF-3699, which was being
driven rashly and negligently by its driver/R1/Vipin
Aggarwal had hit the scooty bearing registration No.
DL11-D-9476 and caused injuries to Dinesh Dua? OPP
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP.
Page 8 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 9 of48
3. Relief.
7. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the
parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading
evidence in support of the same. In support of his case, the
petitioner examined three witnesses.
8. The petitioner got himself examined as PW1, by way of
evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has placed reliance on
documents i.e. copy of OPD Card, regarding future surgery
as Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of treatment record and medical
bills, submitted to the insurance company, from whom, he
had already taken medi-claim policy as Mark ‘A’ (running
into 39 sheets), Copy of medi-claim policy and renewed
medi-claim policy as Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3
respectively, original settlement letter, issued by medi-claim
insurer as Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7, list of medical bills as
Ex.PW1/8, photocopies of medical bills, submitted to medi-
claim insurer as Mark ‘B’ (running into 27 sheets), three
original medical bills as Ex.PW1/9, original medical
certificate, prescribing medical rest, running into four
sheets as Ex.PW1/10, copies of ITRs as Ex.PW1/11 (colly)
(running into 9 sheets), photocopy of his driving license as
Ex.PW1/12 and the DAR filed by the IO as Ex. PW1/13
(colly). His deposition qua the accident in question and
injuries sustained by him in the case accident, is reiteration
of the facts mentioned in the DAR/claim petition. He
further deposed that his aforesaid Scooty was also badly
Page 9 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 10 of48
damaged in the accident. He further deposed that crowd
gathered there and someone from the crowd insisted the
driver Sh. Vipın Aggarwal/Respondent No 1, to take him to
nearby Hospital. He further deposed that the driver Sh.
Vipin Aggarwal/ Respondent No.1, took him to nearby
Muni Maya Ram Hospital, at Pitampura Delhi and got him
admitted there. He further deposed that his relatives also
came there and someone from them informed the police,
who reached at the Hospital and recorded his statement. He
further deposed that FIR against the driver Sh. Vipin
Aggarwal/Respondent No. 1, was registered by the police
of P.S. Maurya Enclave, Delhi, at his instance. He further
deposed that the offending Car No. DL-8CAF-3699, was
also seized by the police, from Muni Maya Ram Hospital,
Pitampura, Delhi and the driver Sh. Vipin Aggarwal was
also arrested by the police, from Muni Maya Ram Jain
Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi. He further deposed that the said
accident took place, solely and entirely, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending Car No.
DL-8C/AF-3699, by its driver Sh. Vipin Aggarwal/
Respondent No.1. He further deposed that in the accident,
he has sustained grievous injuries, fracture on both bones
of forearm (left side), as per discharge slips and MLC. He
further deposed that that from the place of the accident, he
was taken by Sh. Vipin Aggarwal/Respondent No. 1, to
Muni Maya Ram Jain Hospital, at Pitampura, Delhi and he
got him admitted there and after first aid, on the same day
i.e. on 27.10.2021, he was shifted to Dr. Baba Saheb
Page 10 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 11 of48
Ambedkar Hospital, at Rohini, Delhi, where MLC No.
27040, dated 27.10.2021, was prepared and X-Rays of his
left hand was done and thereafter, on the same day, he was
again shifted to BLK-Max Super Speciality Hospital, at
Pusa Road, New Delhi, from where, he was discharged on
30.10.2021. He further deposed that during the period of
this admission, at the abovesaid BLK-Max Super Speciality
Hospital, Operation of fractured both Bones of his left
forearm was done and plates were fixed in both bones of his
left forearm. He further deposed that thereafter, he visited in
the OPD of BLK Max Super Speciality Hospital, New
Delhi on 28.10.2021, 15.11.2021, 17.11.2021, 25.11.2021,
06.12.2021, 13.12.2021, 16.12.2021 and 20.12.2021, for
further regular treatment. He further deposed that since the
Plates fixed in Fractured Both Bones of his Left Forearm,
were discharging Pus, with Osteomylitis (Bone Infection),
therefore, on the advice of his treating Doctors, he was
again admitted in BLK – Max Super Specialist Hospital, at
Pusa Road, New Delhi on 23.01.2022, from where, he was
discharged on 27.01.2022. He further deposed that during
the period of this admission, at the abovesaid hospital,
another operation of his left forearm was done and the
implants/plates earlier fixed, in the radius and Ulna Bones
of his left forearm were removed and the procedure namely
Curettage, saucerization and debridement was also done.
He further deposed that thereafter, he visited in the OPD of
abovesaid Hospital on 31.01.2022, 07.02.2022, 14.02.2022,
28.02.2022 and 20.04.2022, for further regular treatment.
Page 11 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 12 of48
He further deposed that he was unable to use his left thumb,
therefore, on 31.12.2022, he again went in the OPD of
BLK-Max Super Speciality Hospital, at Pusa Road, New
Delhi and consulted his treating doctor Dr. Rakesh
Mahajan, who after check-up, advised him for another
surgery namely Flexon Tendon Repair of Left Thumb. He
further deposed that he is still under active treatment of his
left thumb. He further deposed that the surgery is required
to be done in future, for which, his treating doctor has given
him an estimated amount of Rs.2,50,000/-, being the cost of
future surgery. He further deposed that he received
serious/grievous injuries, in the accident and he has
suffered permanent disability. He further deposed that he
has undergone lot of pain and suffering, on account of
injuries, sustained by him in the accident. He further
deposed that due to the injuries sustained by him, in the
accident, now he is unable to lift weight from his left
forearm. He further deposed that he is unable to drive two-
wheeler scooter, unable to work on his shop of selling
Dupatta, which is run by him, at West Patel Nagar. He
further deposed that pus is still discharging from the
operation site of his left hand. He further deposed that his
original treatment papers, including two Discharge Slips of
BLK-Max Super Speciality Hospital, at Pusa Road, New
Delhi, OPD Cards and Original Bills were submitted by
him, to Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Ltd., from
which, he had taken Medi-claim Policy. He further deposed
that he had taken Medi-claim Policy from Aditya Birla
Page 12 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 13 of48
Health Insurance Company Ltd., for the period 16.01.2021
to 15.01.2022 and sum insured opted per year was Rs.5
Lac. He further deposed that he has paid Rs. 13,118/- as
premium, for the above said Medi-claim Policy. He further
deposed that the above said Medi-claim policy was again
renewed by the abovesaid company, for the period
16.01.2022 to 15.01.2023 and sum insured opted per year
was Rs. 5 Lac. He further deposed that he has again paid
Rs. 13,118/-, as renewal premium, for the above said Medi-
claim Policy. He further deposed that he has applied and
claimed the bill amount of Rs.2,52,764/-, of his first
admission from 27.10.2021 to 30.10.2021, of BLK Max
Super Speciality Hospital, at Pusa Road, New Delhi, and
out of Rs. 2,52,764/-, the Aditya Birla Health Insurance
Company Ltd. has approved and paid Rs. 2,21,532/- and
balance amount of Rs.31,232/- was not paid by the
insurance company and he had paid the balance amount of
Rs.31,232/-, to BLK-Max Super Speciality Hospital, at
Pusa Road, New Delhi. He further deposed that he has
applied and claimed the bill amount of Rs 24,783/-of BLK-
Max Super Speciality Hospital, at Pusa Road, New Delhi,
and out of Rs. 24,783/-, the Aditya Birla Health Insurance
Company Ltd., has approved and paid Rs. 23,156/- and
balance amount of Rs.1,627/- was not paid by the insurance
company and he had paid the balance amount of
Rs.1,627/- , to BLK Max Super Speciality Hospital, at Pusa
Road, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had again
applied and claimed the bill amount of Rs.1,71,386/-, of his
Page 13 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 14 of48
second admission from 23.01.2022 to 27.01.2022 of BLK
Max Super Speciality Hospital, at Pusa Road, New Delhi,
and out of Rs. 1,71,386/-, the Aditya Birla Health Insurance
Company Ltd., approved and paid Rs. 1,45,069.40/- and
balance amount of Rs. 26,316.60/-, was not paid by the
insurance company and he had paid the balance amount of
Rs. 26,316.60 to BLK – Max Super Speciality Hospital, at
Pusa Road, New Delhi. He further deposed that he had
again applied and claimed the Bill amount of Rs.
25,291.50/-, of his treatment and out of Rs. 25,291.50/-, the
Aditya Biria Health Insurance Company Ltd. approved and
paid Rs. 8,851/- and balance amount of Rs. 16,440.50/-,
was not paid by the insurance company and he had paid the
balance amount of Rs. 16,440.50/-, to BLK-Max Super
Speciality Hospital, at Pusa Road, New Delhi. He further
deposed that as per list of medical bills, he is entitled to Rs.
77,195.90/-, being the balance amount of medical bills, not
paid by the medi-claim insurer and paid by him and three
medical bills, which were neither submitted nor claimed by
him, from his medi-claim Insurance Company. He further
deposed that he has also spent more than Rs. 20,000/- on
conveyance, Rs. 30,000/-on special diet, and Rs.30,000/- on
attendant charges. He further deposed that his family
members also attended him, during the period of his
treatment. He further deposed that his date of birth is
23.12.1974 and at the time of accident, his age was about
46 years. He further deposed that he is matriculate. He
further deposed that at the time of accident, he was running
Page 14 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 15 of48
business of selling Dupatta and other ladies fabrics and his
shop is situated at West Patel Nagar and the name of his
shop is titled as “Dua Dupatta Corner”. He further deposed
that he is filing his income tax returns regularly. He further
deposed that before accident, for the previous year
01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 (Assesment Year 2021-22), his
income was Rs. 6,70,125/- and after accident, he could not
run his shop from 27.10.2021 to 03.04.2022. He further
deposed that as per the medical certificates, issued by BLK-
Max Super Speciality Hospital, bed rest was prescribed to
him. He further deposed that after the accident, due to the
injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered
loss of income and his income was reduced from Rs.
6,70,125/- to Rs. 3,41,472/-. He further deposed that at the
time of accident, he was holding valid and effective driving
licence, to drive two-wheeler scooter.
9. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance
company/R3, wherein he deposed that he was having
Driving License Ex.PW1/12, at the time of accident. He
further deposed that the offending vehicle had hit his
scooty on its left side. He further deposed that he had not
seen the offending vehicle, prior to the occurrence of the
case accident, as the alleged vehicle suddenly reversed and
hit his scooty. He further deposed that the place of accident
was not authorized for parking but, people usually parked
their vehicles. He further deposed that he has sustained
Page 15 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 16 of48
injuries in his left hand. He further deposed that he had
also sustained minor injuries, in his left leg. He further
deposed that after hitting his scooty, he fell down on his
right hand side. He denied the suggestion, that the accident
occurred, due to his own negligence, as he was not driving
his scooty properly. He admitted that he was shifted to the
hospital, by driver of the offending vehicle. He further
deposed that he had received partial amount from TPA. He
further deposed that he had annexed list of medical bills
Ex.PW1/8, which shows the amount, which he had received
or not received. He further deposed that he was running a
shop, in the name and style of Dua Dupatta. He further
deposed that he was filing ITRs and he has annexed his
ITRs, which are already exhibited Ex.PW1/9. He denied the
suggestion, that he is deposing falsely, as mentioned in his
evidence by way of affidavit, in para no.16.
10. The petitioner further examined Sh. Sanchit, Senior
Supervisor, Medical Record, B.L. Kapoor Hospital, Delhi,
as PW2. He was a summoned witness and he exhibited
copy of his identity card as Ex.PW2/1. He deposed that as
on the date of his deposition, he has brought the summoned
record, that is treatment record and medical bills of patient
Dinesh Dua. He further deposed that the patient was
admitted in their hospital on 27.10.2021 and discharged on
30.10.2021 and he exhibited the entire record as Ex.PW2/2
(colly). He further exhibited the final medical bill of the
Page 16 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 17 of48
hospital, for the abovesaid period as Ex.PW2/3 (colly). He
further deposed that the patient was again admitted in their
hospital on 23.01.2022 and discharged on 27.01.2022 and
he exhibited the entire record as Ex.PW2/4 (colly). He
further exhibited the final medical bill of the hospital, for
the abovesaid period as Ex.PW2/5 (colly). PW2 was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the insurance company/R3,
wherein he deposed that he has no personal knowledge,
about the payment of medical bills of the patient. He
further deposed that he has no personal knowledge about
the case. He denied the suggestion, that the record brought
by him in the court are false and fabricated. He further
deposed that he has been telephonically directed by the
office of Medical Superintendent of B.L. Kapoor Hospital,
to appear before the Hon’ble Court and to produce the
record, however, no written authority letter has been issued
in his name.
11. The petitioner further examined Dr. Abhinav Tiwari, S.R.
Orthopedics, BSA Hospital, Delhi. He was a summoned.
He deposed that he was one of the member of the Medical
Board, constituted by M.S of Dr. BSA Hospital. He further
deposed that the patient Dinesh Dua, aged 48 years, was
medically examined by Board of Doctors of Dr. BSA Hospital,
to ascertain his permanent disability, if any. He further
deposed that he has seen the disability certificate No. 1677,
dated 21.11.2023, issued by the Board, consisting of Dr. Apoorv
Dua and himself and Chairperson Dr. Kuldeep Singh, qua
Page 17 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 18 of48
patient Dinesh Dua. He further deposed that he can identify
the signatures of Dr. Apoorv Dua, at point A, Dr. Kuldeep Singh,
at point B and his signatures, appearing at point C. He further
exhibited the said disability certificate as Ex.PW3/A and
photocopy of assessment chart as Ex. PW3/B. He further
deposed that as per the said disability certificate, the patient has
suffered permanent physical disability, to the tune of 3%, in
relation to left upper limb, with diagnosis of left post operative
myalagia (wrist and forearm). He further deposed that the
patient would feel pain, in his left forearm, while performing
activities.
12. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced
by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused
the record.
13. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in
support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings
of this Tribunal, are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 27.10.2021 at about 11.45 am, at BD Block HDFC
Bank, Pitampura, Delhi, one car bearing registration no. DL8C-
AF-3699, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its
driver/R1/Vipin Aggarwal had hit the scooty bearing registration
No. DL11-D-9476 and caused injuries to Dinesh Dua? OPP
14. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of
probabilities, was upon the petitioner/claimant. For
deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Dinesh Dua
Page 18 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 19 of48
is relevant, being an eyewitness, as well as the
injured/petitioner. PW1 deposed that on 27.10.2021, he was
going to Patel Nagar, via Power House Road, on his Scooty,
bearing registration No. DL-11D-9476 and at about 11.45
am, when he reached in front of BD Block, HDFC Bank,
Pitampura, Delhi, he was hit by one car, bearing registration
no. DL-8CAF-3699, which was driven in reverse (back-
side), in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver/R1. He
further deposed that as a result of the said impact, he fell
down on the road and has sustained injuries. He further
deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle, took him to
Muni Mayaram Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi and in the
meanwhile, one of his known person has called the police.
He further deposed that thereafter, police officials came at
Muni Maya Ram Hospital and he handed over R1 to the
police. He further deposed that he was given first aid at the
said hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Dr. Baba Sahab
Ambedkar Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi, where he was
medically examined, vide MLC bearing No. 27040/2021, as
per which, injuries sustained by him, was opined to be
grievous in nature.
15. PW1 was also cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
insurance company/R3 but, R3 failed to impeach the
credibility of PW1 and failed to elicit any admissions, from
the testimony of PW1, so as to prove that the alleged
accident has not taken place, with the offending vehicle.
Further suggestions were also put to PW1, that the accident
Page 19 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 20 of48
occurred, due to his negligence, as he was not driving his
Scooty properly, but, PW1 denied the said suggestion.
16. Though, R1 and R2 have raised the defence, in their
written statement, that the accident has taken place, due to
petitioner’s own negligence. It was contended by them, that
on 27.10.2021, R1 was coming from his brother’s house,
from BD Block, Pitampura, Delhi and was driving towards
his house at Kasturba Apartments, Pitampura, Delhi and
while driving, suddenly a street dog came in front of his
vehicle, due to which, he applied brakes, with all due
precautions, but, as the petitioner was coming on his
Scooty, at a very high speed, he hit the respondent’s car
from behind. But, R1 failed to lead any positive evidence,
at the stage of respondent’s evidence, to establish the said
defence. Be that as it may, even if the contention of R1, is
accepted to be true, on its face value, that while driving the
offending vehicle, suddenly a street dog came in front of
his vehicle and he applied brakes, then in such eventuality
also, as R1 has admittedly applied brakes, on a running
road, he should be vigilant enough, to apply brakes with all
due care and precaution, looking at the traffic around him.
But, R1 failed to lead any evidence, in his favour, so as to
prove that he has exercised all due care and caution.
17. Further, as per the chargesheet, as well as evidence lead by
the petitioner/PW1, the accident has not taken place, with a
stationary vehicle, due to application of brakes by R1 but,
Page 20 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 21 of48
it has taken place, while R1 was driving the offending
vehicle in reverse gear. Thus, it can be safely concluded
that the accident in question has taken place, while R1 was
driving the offending vehicle, in reverse gear, without
exercise of due care and caution.
18. In the present matter, R1 has not disputed the involvement
of the offending vehicle, in the accident in question. The
only defence raised by R1 and R2, in their written
statement is that the accident has taken place, due to the
rashness or negligence, on the part of the petitioner. But, as
R1 failed to cross-examine PW1, despite being granted
opportunity, therefore, he deemed to have admitted, that
there was rashness and negligence, on his part, in causing
the accident in question.
19. In their written statement, R1 and R2 further raised the
defence, that as per Form-XII (Victim Impact Report), at
point 56 (iv), (ix) and (xiv), it has been mentioned by the
IO, that respondent no.1 was involved in Criss Cross
Driving, driving close to vehicle in front and exceeding
speed limit, which itself shows, that there are clear
contradictions, in the report filed by the IO, with the FIR
lodged but, the alleged contradictions per-se, does not
absolve the liability of R1, because, the contradictions, if
any, could be explained only by the IO but, R1 and R2
failed to examine the IO, so as to seek any explanation
from him, in this regard. Further, as chargesheet has been
Page 21 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 22 of48
filed by the IO against R1, after detailed investigation and
no evidence has been lead by R1, to prove that there was
no negligence on his part or that he was falsely implicated
in this case by the IO, in connivance with the petitioner or
he has ever approached to any higher authority, with
respect to his false implication, in the present case,
therefore, it can be safely concluded, that the accident in
question in which petitioner has sustained grievous
injuries, as evident, from his treatment record, has been
caused, due to rash and negligent driving, of the offending
vehicle by R1.
Issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner and against
the respondents accordingly.
ISSUE No. 2
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?OPP
20. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1
regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of
the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to
compensation, in respect of pain and suffering, medical
expenses, special diet charges, conveyance charges and
other expenditure incurred by him, on account of injuries
sustained in the above-mentioned road traffic accident.
This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence,
including the documents of the petitioner/claimant, for the
Page 22 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 23 of48
purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of
compensation, to which the petitioner/claimant is entitled.
21. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claim Tribunal to hold
an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining
the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just
and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the
compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza
nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
22. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs. 77,195.90/-
being the balance amount of medical expenses, not paid by
the medi-claim insurance company. To prove the said
aspect, the petitioner/PW1 got himself examined as PW1,
by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he
deposed that as per list of medical bills Ex.PW1/8, he is
entitled for compensation of Rs. 77,195.90/-, being the
balance amount of medical bills, not paid by medi-claim
insurer and paid by him and three other medical bills, which
were neither submitted nor claimed by him, from his medi-
claim insurance company.
23. During the course of cross-examination of PW1, by Ld.
Counsel for R3, PW1 again reiterated that he has annexed
list of medical bills Ex.PW1/8, which shows the amount,
Page 23 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 24 of48
which he had received and which was not received by him.
Perusal of the settlement letters Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/7,
prima facie reveals that the medi-claim insurance company
of the petitioner, has partially approved the medical
expenditure, meaning thereby, that the remaining amount
has to be paid by the petitioner, to the concerned hospitals.
Perusal of the list of medical bills Ex.PW1/8 and three other
bills Ex.PW1/9, reveals that the petitioner has to incur
aggregate expenditure, of Rs.77,195.90/-, on his medical
treatment. Accordingly, in view of the original medical
bills, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.
77,195.90/, towards medical expenses.
24. Further, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that
the petitioner is also entitled for reimbursement of medi-
claim insurance premium, as paid by him, to his medi-calim
insurer, from whom, he has taken reimbursement. In
support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance
upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, titled as
“Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ganpat
Rai Sehgal and others, 2013 ACJ 2366, in which it was
observed, that though the amount, which the petitioner has
got reimbursement, from the insurance company, qua the
medical expenses is required to be deducted, from the
medical expenses, however, the premium paid by the
claimant, is required to be reimbursed to him. In the said
case, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, has also observed that
though no evidence was led by the petitioner, as to the
Page 24 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 25 of48
amount paid by him towards medi-claim insurance policy
but, in order to compensate the claimant, The court had
taken the amount of income tax, that ought to be deducted,
from his gross income, as the insurance premium, paid
towards medi-claim insurance policy and personal accident
policy.
25. In the present matter, the petitioner has proved on record,
that he has paid two premiums of Rs. 13,118/- each,
towards medi-claim insurance policy, vide document
Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3, covering the period of accident
and treatment. Record further reveals that as per medical
treatment record, as well as medical bills of the petitioner,
the petitioner remains under continuous treatment upto
31.12.2022, as evident from his last medical bill dated
31.12.2022 Ex.PW1/9. Therefore, in view of the above
discussion, the petitioner is also entitled for medi-claim
insurance premium of Rs. 26,236/-, under the head of
medical expenses. Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate,
to award compensation of Rs. 1,03,431.9/- (26,236 +
77,195.90), to the petitioner, under the head of medical
expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
26. The petitioner has sought an amount of Rs.20,000/- as
compensation, on account of his expenditure, on
conveyance and Rs.30,000/- on special diet however, he has
Page 25 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 26 of48
not placed on record, any prescription slip of a doctor,
medical practitioner or dietitian, issued in his name (the
name of the petitioner), advising him to take any form of
special diet or any bill of special diet, such as high protein
diet or liquid diet or nutritional supplements, for speedy
recovery of the injuries sustained by him, in the case
accident.
27. Further, he has also not placed on record, any bill of
conveyance, such as bills raised by any private taxi service
or ambulance service, availed by him, for travelling to the
hospital, from his residence or vice versa, during his
treatment period. In such circumstances, the requirement of
special diet and conveyance, if any faced by the petitioner,
during his treatment period, has to be ascertained, in
accordance with the nature of injuries, sustained by the
petitioner.
28. In this context, a perusal of court record reveals that as per
the medical treatment papers of the petitioner Mark-A and
Mark-B, which were submitted by him, to medi-claim
insurance company, three other medical bills Ex.PW1/9, as
well as MLC, as filed with the DAR Ex.PW1/13, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, due to the
accident. Further, as per his treatment record, after the
accident on 27.10.2021, initially, the petitioner received
first aid from Muni Mayaram Hospital , from where, he was
shifted to BSA Hospital, where his MLC No. 27040/2021,
Page 26 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 27 of48
was prepared and thereafter, he was shifted to BLK Max
Super Speciality Hospital, Pusa Road, New Delhi, where he
remains admitted from 27.10.2021 till 31.10.2021 and
during that period, he has undergone surgery for plating, for
fracture radius and bone grafting (100%). As per the
documents placed on record by the petitioner, even after
discharge, the petitioner has visited the said hospital in
OPDs, on various dates. Thereafter, the petitioner again got
admitted at BLK Max Super Speciality Hospital, on
23.01.2022 and discharged on 27.01.2022 and during the
said period, he has undergone procedure for curretage,
saurcerization and debridement, with implant removal
radius and ulna plate, left side on 24.01.2022 and thereafter
also, he visited the said hospital in OPD, on various dates.
The medical documents of BLK Max Super Speciality
Hospital, has been further proved on record by the
petitioner, by examining PW2 Sh. Sanchit, Senior
Supervisor of Medical Record, who has exhibited the said
record as Ex.PW2/2 (Colly), Ex.PW2/3(Colly), Ex.PW2/4
(Colly) and Ex.PW2/5.
29. Perusal of the medical treatment record, as well as medical
bills of the petitioner, further reveals that the petitioner
remains under continuous treatment up to 31.12.2022, as
evident from his last medical bill dated 31.12.2022
Ex.PW1/9. Further, the petitioner has proved on record, his
medical certificates dated 15.11.2021, 10.01.2022,
28.02.2022 and 18.06.2022 Ex.PW1/10 (colly), to prove
Page 27 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 28 of48
bed rest of 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks and 4 weeks
respectively, as advised to him, by the treating Doctors.
30. Besides this, the petitioner has examined Dr. Abhinav
Tiwari, S.R. Orthopedic, BSA Hospital, Delhi, as PW3,
who proved on record disability certificate of the petitioner,
bearing No. 1677, dated 21.11.2023, as Ex.PW3/A, as per
which, the petitioner has sustained 3% permanent physical
disability, in relation to his left upper limb, with diagnosis
of left post operative myalagia (wrist and forearm), due to
the injuries, sustained in the case accident. Accordingly, in
view of the nature of injuries, sustained by the petitioner, as
well as after considering the period of his hospitalization,
coupled with 3% physical permanent disability, in relation
to his left upper limb, the period of treatment cum
recuperation, in case of the petitioner, is ascertained to be
about 14 months. Consequently, this Tribunal is of the
opinion, that during his treatment cum recuperation period,
the petitioner must have incurred expenses, in procuring
special diet, for his speedy recovery, as well as in travelling
from his residence, to hospital and vice versa. Accordingly,
a lump sum amount of Rs.40,000/-, is granted under this
head to the petitioner, which includes Rs. 20,000/- each,
towards special diet and conveyance respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
31. The petitioner has sought an amount of Rs. 30,000/-, as
compensation, on account of expenditure incurred by him,
Page 28 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 29 of48
towards attendant charges. But, the petitioner failed to place
on record any receipt, as to any payment, being made by
him to any agency, from which, he had hired any attendant
or any document, to show credit of any amount, to any
attendant or agency. However, taking into consideration the
fact, that the petitioner has duly proved, that as a result of
the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries, with 3%
permanent disability, in relation to his left upper limb and
as his treatment cum recuperation period has already been
assessed to be about 14 months, therefore, this Tribunal is
of the opinion, that the petitioner must have felt compelled
to avail services of a medical attendant or a family member
as an attendant for self care activities, such as, bathing,
dressing up, using the rest room, combing his hairs, eating
etc., during his treatment cum recuperation period of 14
months. Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to
award a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/-, as compensation
to the petitioner, under this head towards attendant charges.
COMPENSATION DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY/
LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY DUE TO
DISABILITY
32. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of
loss of income, due to the permanent disability sustained by
the petitioner, in the case accident.
Page 29 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 30 of48
33. Perusal of the court record reveals that as per disability
certificate bearing No. No. 1677, dated 21.11.2023, as
Ex.PW3/A, as per which, the petitioner has sustained 3%
permanent physical disability, in relation to left upper limb,
with diagnosis of left post operative myalagia (wrist and
forearm), due to the injuries sustained in the case accident.
34. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its order passed in case of
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003,
date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held that same
percentage of permanent disability may have different
impact upon earning capacity of different individuals, based
upon the nature of their work. Relevant extract of
observations made in para no.6.4 and 6.5 of the judgment
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the above named
case is reproduced hereinbelow:
“6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different
persons, depending upon the nature of profession,
occupation or job, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability
and what he could not do as a result of the permanent
disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the accident, as also
his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of
livelihood, or
Page 30 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 31 of48
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the
claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but could
carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to
earn his livelihood.”
35. In the light of above cited observations made by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, in the decided case of Rajesh Tyagi &
Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors (supra), it can be safely
concluded that same percentage of permanent disability can
have different impact on functional capacity and earning
potential of an individual depending upon the nature of his
job. Therefore, the functional disability has to be
ascertained, taking into consideration its impact on the
work of the claimant.
36. In the present matter, the petitioner/PW1 deposed that at the
time of accident, he was running business of selling
Dupatta and other ladies fabrics, from his shop “Dua
Dupatta Corner”, situated at West Patel Nagar and he was
also filing his income tax return. He further deposed that he
could not run his shop from 27.10.2021 to 03.04.2022. But,
the petitioner failed to place on record, any document, so as
to prove that he was running any shop, by the name of Dua
Dupatta Corner, for doing business of selling dupatta and
other ladies fabrics.
Page 31 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 32 of48
37. In order to prove his income, the petitioner has proved on
record, his income tax returns for the assessment year 2019-
20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 as Ex.PW1/11 (Colly).
Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion, that the annual
income of the petitioner, can be ascertained, by taking into
consideration, his average annual income, on the basis of
his last three ITRs. As per the ITR of the petitioner, for the
assessment year 2019-20, his gross income was Rs.
4,65,681/- and there is no deduction of tax accordingly, his
net annual income was Rs. 4,65,681/-. Further, as per the
ITR of the petitioner, for the assessment year 2020-21, his
gross income was Rs. 6,50,399/- and there is no deduction
of tax, accordingly, his net annual income was Rs.
6,50,399/- and as per his ITR for the assessment year 2021-
2022, his gross income was Rs. 6,78,102/- but, there is no
deduction of income tax, therefore, his net annual income
was Rs. 6,78,102/-.
38. The petitioner has further placed reliance on his ITR, for
the assessment year 2022-2023, wherein his gross as well
as net income was reflected as Rs. 3,47,800/-, which proves
that due to the accident, his income was reduced. Therefore,
the same proves that there was loss of future earnings of the
petitioner, due to the accident in question.
39. The average annual income of the deceased, is therefore
calculated, by taking into consideration, his net income, on
the basis of his last 3 ITRs, prior to the accident, as proved
Page 32 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 33 of48
by PW1, which comes to Rs. 5,98,060.66/- per year (total
income of three years divided by 3). Accordingly, the
petitioner’s monthly income is taken as Rs. 49,838.38/-.
40. The petitioner has examined PW3, who during the course
of his evidence, before this Tribunal, deposed that the
petitioner has sustained 3% permanent disability, in relation
to his left upper limb, with diagnosis of left post operative
myalagia (wrist and forearm), due to the injuries sustained
in the case accident. He further deposed that the patient
would feel pain, in his left forearm, while performing
activities. However, as the petitioner was unable to prove
on record, that he was running a shop of dupatta and ladies
fabric, at West Patel Nagar Delhi, therefore, deposition of
PW3, as to the impact of permanent disability, as sustained
by the petitioner, on his working capacity, as a shopkeeper,
cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, this Tribunal
deems it appropriate, to assess the functional disability of
the petitioner and the effect of permanent disability, on his
actual earning capacity as 1.5%.
ADDITION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS.
41. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of
future prospects in his monthly income, reference should be
made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of National
Page 33 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 34 of48
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP
(Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court interalia held as under:-.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
(i)……………………………………………………………………………..
(ii) ………………………………………………………………………….
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and
was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The
addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of
Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years. ”
(…. Emphasis Supplied)
Page 34 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 35 of48
42. Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs
Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on
03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors,
MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
43. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi
(Supra), after referring to the judgment of the Constitution
bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision
31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase
in the income, in a case where the income of the petitioner
was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages
with functional disability @ 10%.
44. As per Aadhar Card of the petitioner, his date of birth is
23.12.1974 and the accident in question has occurred on
27.10.2021, therefore the age of the injured, at the time of
accident was 46 years, 10 months and 04 days. In view of
paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay
Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition
of 25% of the established income, as he was above the age
of 40 years at the time of his accident. The monthly income
of the petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 49,838.38/- + 25%
of 49,838.38/-, which comes to Rs.49,838.38/-+ 12,459.59/-
= Rs.62,297.98/-.
Page 35 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 36 of48
45. The age of the petitioner at the time of accident was about
46 years 10 months and 04 days. In the said circumstances,
the relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009
ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma
case by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 13 is
to be applied for computing compensation payable to a
victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 46 years to
50 years. The compensation is accordingly assessed
towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.1,45,777.27/-
[(Rs.62,297.98/- per month x 12 months x 13 (age
multiplier) x 1.5/100 (functional disability)].
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE.
46. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly proved that as
a result of the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries,
with 3% permanent disability, in relation to his left upper
limb and as his treatment cum recuperation period has
already been assessed to be about 14 months accordingly, it
can be safely concluded that the petitioner must have
suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its amenities, due to
permanent disability sustained by him, which is 3%, on
account of having met with the case accident and therefore,
this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to grant a total sum of
Rs.30,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner, under the
said head of loss of amenities of life.
Page 36 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 37 of48
PAIN AND SUFFERING
47. The petitioner has claimed compensation on account of
trauma suffered by him, due to the injuries sustained in the
case accident. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly
proved that as a result of the accident, he has sustained
grievous injuries, with 3% permanent disability, in relation
to his left upper limb and as his treatment cum recuperation
period has already been assessed to be about 14 months
accordingly, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
petitioner must have suffered acute pain and mental agony,
during his treatment and on account permanent disability
suffered by him. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.
40,000/-, is granted in favour of the petitioner under the
said head.
LOSS OF INCOME
48. Petitioner in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A,
has deposed that prior to the accident, he was running a
shop of dupatta and ladies fabric but, he failed to prove on
record, his income and occupation. Further, in paragraph
No.39, his monthly income has already been assessed as
Rs. 49,838.38/- and since the treatment-cum-recuperation
period of the petitioner has already been determined to be
14 months, accordingly, a sum of Rs. 6,97,737.32/-
(Rs.49,838.38/- x 14 months), is awarded in favour of the
petitioner, as compensation, under the head of loss of
income.
Page 37 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 38 of48
49. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be
awarded to the petitioner comes to Rs. 10,81,947/- which is
tabulated as below
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 40,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 25,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 1,03,431.9/-
5. Loss of income Rs.6,97,737.32/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 30,000/-
7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs.1,45,777.27/-
Total Rs. 10,81,946.49
Rounded off to Rs. 10,81,947/-
(Rupees Ten Lacs Eighty One Thousand Nine Hundred
Forty Seven only)
50. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the
awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Apex
Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48
(SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded
compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, in
the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of
the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition
i.e. w.e.f 23.07.2022 till realization of the compensation
amount.
51. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be
deducted from the above amount, if the same has already
been paid to the petitioner.
Page 38 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 39 of48
LIABILITY
52. In the present matter, the question which arises for
determination, is as to which of the respondents, is liable to
pay the compensation amount. Respondent no.3/insurance
company did not adduce any evidence, as it had filed the
legal offer. It is nowhere the case of insurance company,
that any terms or conditions of the insurance policy was
breached/violated by the insured. Keeping in view the
existence of valid insurance policy, respondent no.
3/insurance company becomes liable, to pay the
compensation amount to the petitioner, as insurance
company is liable to indemnify the insured.
53. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated
16.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and
Ors., ICICI Lombard General Insurance co./R3 is directed
to deposit the awarded amount of Rs. 10,81,947/-, within 30
days from today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at
State Bank of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the petition, till notice of deposition of the awarded
amount to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate
and to show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment
with the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit
the awarded amount in the above said bank by means of
cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with
Page 39 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 40 of48
the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank
is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit
in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for
disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning
interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
54. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP
was recorded on 21.10.2024 regarding his savings bank A/c
with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan,
cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner
and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding
the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of
the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the judgment passed in the case of General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for
appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from
being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their
ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation,
following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
55. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
and clause 32 of MCTAP, regarding protection of the award
amount, it is hereby directed that on realization, an amount
of Rs. 3,81,947/- be released to him in his MACT Claims
SB A/c no. 43258073792, SBI, Rohini Courts Branch,
Page 40 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 41 of48
Delhi, as per rules, that is, the branch near his place of
residence (as mentioned in statement recorded under clause
29 MCTAP) and remaining amount be kept in the form of
FDRs of equal amount for a period of one month to 40
months respectively with cumulative interest without the
facility of advance, loan and pre-mature withdrawal without
the prior permission of the Tribunal.
56. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the
claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of
Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till
the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to
ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue
inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to
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 victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) shall be individual savings account(s) and not a
joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank
in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity
amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the
Page 41 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 42 of48claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank
account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence
i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit
card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank
shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award
amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of
the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the
bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant(s) to the effect, that no cheque book and/or
debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without
the permission of the court and claimant(s) shall produce
the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the
court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank
along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank
official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient
compliance of clause (g) above.
Page 42 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 43 of48
RELIEF
57. As discussed above, ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited/R3 is directed to deposit the award
amount of Rs. 10,81,947/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is, 23.07.2022
till realization within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at
SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi within 30 days from
today under intimation of deposition of the awarded amount
to be given by R3 to the petitioner and his advocate failing
which the R3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per
annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
58. R3 is also directed to place on record the proof of deposit of
the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in respect of
deposit of the amount in the above said bank to the
claimants and complete details in respect of calculations of
interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
59. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 2
for compliance within the granted time.
60. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of
non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the
granted time.
61. In terms of directions contained in the order dated
07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi
Page 43 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 44 of48
& Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of
the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr.
Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of
India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian
Bank’s Association as circulated to the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated
22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal
Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606)
{other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA)
13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email
([email protected]) through the computer branch of
Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to
take immediate steps in that regard.
62. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders
passed by the Hon’ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh
Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
63. In view of the directions contained in order dated
18.01.2018 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no.
842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the
statement of petitioner was also recorded on 21.10.2024.
The record would show that the relevant documents
including copy of aadhar card, PAN card, copy of bank pass
book and form 15G of the petitioner have already been
supplied to the Ld. counsel for insurance co. on 21.10.2024
Page 44 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 45 of48
itself.
64. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been
attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per
rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy
of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per
Digitally signed
rules. SHAMA by SHAMA
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.26
16:47:16 +0530Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 26th July, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, DelhiPage 45 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 46 of48FORM – IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 27.10.2021
2. Name of injured: Dinesh Dua
3. Age of the injured: About 46 years, 10 months and 04 days at
the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Private Work
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 49,838.38/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 14 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: As per record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes.
03% Permanent Physical Disability
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.1,03,431.9/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.20,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.20,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.25,000/-
Page 46 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 47 of48
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,45,777.27/-
(vi) Loss of income Rs.6,97,737.32/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
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 3% Permanent Physical
nature of disability as permanent or Disability
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 1.5%
capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (Income X Rs.1,45,777.27/-[(Rs.
Page 47 of48
Dinesh Dua vs Vipin Aggarwal and Ors. Page 48 of48
% Earning capacity X Multiplier) 62,297.98/- per month x12
months x 13(age multiplier)
x 1.5/100 (functional
disability)].
(v) Future Medical Expenses N/A
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 10,81,946.49-/- (rounded
off to Rs. 10,81,947/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.50%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.2,44,114.29
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.13,26,061.29 (rounded
off to Rs. 13,26,062/-)
18. Award amount released Rs. 3,81,947/-/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.9,44,115/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of
amount to the claimant (s) clause 29 of MCTAP
(Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 25.08.2025.
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
by SHAMA
SHAMA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.26
16:47:08
+0530
Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 26th July, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Page 48 of48