Delhi District Court
Hemant Kr … vs Lal Jeet Choudhary(Magma) on 17 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010155532024
MACT No. : 723/24
FIR No. : 233/2024
PS : Ranjit Nagar
u/s : 281/125 (A)/106 (1) BNS
Sh. Hemant Kumar Pahadiya,
S/o Sh. Chaman Lal,
R/o C-328, Budha Nagar,
JJ Colony, Inderpuri, Central,
New Delhi.
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Lal Jeet Choudhary(driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Lt. Sh. Shyam Babu Choudhary
R/o Vill. Ratan Maniya,
PS-Pair, PO Bandra District, Muzaffarpur,
Bihar, C/o 129, Near Bhumiya Chowk,
Vilalge, Bakauli, Ali Pur, Delhi
2. Praveen Kumar (Owner of the Offending Vehicle)
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o 22, Nimri Chowk,
Village Bakoli,
Delhi-10036.
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurer)
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24 13:12:20 +0530
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 1 of 40
C/o 1st Floor, H1/A/16, Sector-63,
OppElectronic City Metro Station,
Noida UP-201301.
...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 30.09.2024
Judgment reserved on : 27.01.2026
Date of Award : 17.02.2026
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
30.09.2024 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 01.07.2024 at about 07:20 pm, in
front of Satya Park, Near Sangam Colony, Girdhari Lal Goswami
Marg, towards Shadipur Red Light. Mr. Hemant Kumar Pahadia
suffered injuries in the said accident which was allegedly caused by
vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAC-6272, (hereinafter referred
to as the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was being driven by
respondent no. 1 Lal Jeet Choudhary, owned by respondent no. 2
Praveen Kumar, and insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI
General Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that
on 30.09.2024, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD
No.49A and 50A, the investigation of present accident was marked to
the IO/SI Sandeep. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Chand went to the spot
where IO got information about the injured person who was taken to
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:12:27 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 2 of 40
the hospital by PCR and thereafter IO went to the hospital. It was found
that the I/C of the PCR was in the hospital. One person was handed
over to the IO who was the driver of the offending vehicle, who
disclosed his name as Lal Jeet Chaudhary. IO sent driver of the
offending vehicle to the police station by PCR Van. The doctor declared
Injured Bharat Pahadia brought dead vide MLC No. 36/24.
3. Thereafter, IO enquired from the complainant namely
Abhishek Ashwal and Hemant Pahadia about the incident. During the
investigation, complainant revealed the registration number of the
offending vehicle as DL1LAC6272. Dead body was sent to mortuary
by the IO in RML Hospital. Thereafter, two injured persons was taken
to the RML Hospital for further treatment. Thereafter, IO went to the
spot. IO tried to take videography through e-praman app but the app
was not working. Thereafter, IO took the videography from his own
mobile phone. Thereafter, IO had taken offending vehicle into his
custody and deposited it in the Malkhana.
4. Thereafter, IO went to the hospital and collected the MLC
bearing no. E124843/24/505470 of injured namely Abhishek Ashwal
and MLC No. E124846/24/505473 of injured namely Hemant Pahadia.
IO recorded the statement of injured person namely Abhishek Ashwal.
IO registered FIR on the basis of statement of injured, PCR call and
MLCs u/s 281/106(1) BNS. Thereafter, IO prepared the site plan at the
instance of Abhishek Ashwal and added section 125A BNS. IO also
recovered one scooty and one motor-cycle, one of deceased person and
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24
13:12:34 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 3 of 40
other of injured person. Thereafter, IO deposited them in the malkhana.
Injured person namely Abhishek Ashwal correctly identified the driver
of the offending vehicle at the police station and thereafter IO
interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle and he confessed that
the accident was caused by him and IO arrested the accused.
5. Offence being bailable, the driver of the offending vehicle
was released on bail. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the MACT,
Cell, Central District, IO/SI Birender Singh for further investigation.
On 02.07.2024, IO got conducted the postmortem of the dead body and
thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relative of the
deceased person. Thereafter, doctor handed over blood sample of
alcohol and blood on gauze for preservation of the deceased person to
the IO.
6. Thereafter, IO got conducted mechanical inspection of all
the offending vehicles. Thereafter, driver of the offending vehicle
produced his DL and documents of the offending vehicle before the IO.
Further two MLCs were deposited to the hospital for final opinion.
Doctor opined that the injuries in both the MLCs were “simple”.
Thereafter, IO searched the CCTV Footage of the spot but he was
unable to find the same. Thereafter, IO got verified the documents of
the offending vehicle, wherein it was found the permit and pollution
was invalid. Thereafter, it was found that the permit and pollution was
renewed after the incident. Thereafter, IO notice served upon the
relative of the deceased for production of DL but they informed that no
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24 13:12:40 +0530
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 4 of 40
DL was brought by the deceased person at the time of incident.
7. IO served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the
offending vehicle upon which he replied that at the time of incident Sh.
Lal Jeet Chaudhary was driving the said offending vehicle. Thereafter,
IO deposited the exhibits which was taken by him from the hospital
with the FSL, Rohini, Delhi. Thereafter, IO collected the postmortem
report bearing no. 566/24. Thereafter, IO prepared the kalandara on the
basis of permit and pollution u/s 66.(1)/192,115/190 MV Act against
the respondent no.2. Thereafter, chargesheet was prepared against the
accused namely Lal Jeet Singh, u/s 281/ 125A, 106(1) BNS, which was
filed before the Ld. JMFC and DAR was filed in the present case.
Supplementary chargesheet was filed later wherein the DNA of the
deceased had matched with the petitioner.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
8. WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2 on
26.11.2024, wherein it was stated that the respondent no.1 was driving
his vehicle as per the traffic rules and regulations. He was holding a
valid driving license and that he was not responsible for the accident, as
the accident was not caused by him. It was stated that the drivers of the
motor-cycle and the scooty were playing and the accident was caused
due to their own negligence. The respondent no.1 was implicated in the
accident as he helped the injured persons after they met with the
accident. The motor-cycle was admittedly not in a working condition.
Hence, the same should not have been plying on the road. Hence, it
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:12:47 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 5 of 40
was stated that the injured persons were solely responsible for the
accident.
9. Separate WS was filed on behalf of the respondent no.3
wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the
respondent no.3 vide policy no. P0024100026/4103/101005 for the
period 12.02.2024 to 11.02.2025. It was stated that the petitioner was
under the liability to prove the accident and the rash and negligent
driving of the respondent no.1. Further, it was stated that the
respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid
permit, which was a clear violation of the terms of the policy. Further,
it was stated that the injured persons were not carrying valid driving
licenses at the time of the accident and they were riding the two-
wheelers without helmet. Further, the manner in which they were
driving their vehicles clearly imply that they were driving the vehicles
rashly. Hence, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was not liable to
pay any compensation and that the injured persons were liable for
contributory negligence.
ISSUES
10. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order
dated 04.01.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured/petitioner suffered injures in an
accident that took place on 01.07.2024 at about 04:20
pm in front of Satya Park, Near Sangam Colony,
Girdhari Lal Goswami Marg, towards Shadipur Red
Light, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1LAC-6272 driven rashly and negligently by
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
MACT No.723/24 SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:12:52 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 6 of 40
respondent no. 1 Lal Jeet Choudhary, Owned by
respondent no. 2 Praveen Kumar and insured with
respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General Insurance Co.
Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so , to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
11. The petitioner examined himself i.e. Sh. Hemant Kumar
Pahadiya as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Educational Certificate of deponent was Ex. PW-1/1.
2. Copy of my PAN Card which was Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR).
3. Copy of my Aadhar Card which was Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR).
4. DAR which was Ex. PW-1/4 (Colly).
12. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 11.11.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
13. Thereafter, Sh. Laljeet Choudhary was examined as RW-1
and he only tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which was Ex.
RW-1/A. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
14. Respondent no. 3 examined its Legal Manager Sh. Rahul
Kumar Sharma as R3W1 and he tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit which was Ex. R3W-1/A. He relied upon the following
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 13:12:58
Date: 2026.02.17
+0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 7 of 40
documents:
a) Copy of insurance policy as Ex. R3W1/1
b) Copy of permit of the offending vehicle Ex. R3W1/2
c) Copy of notice under Order 12 rule 8 CPC issued to respondents no.
1 & 2 with original postal receipts Ex. R3W1/3 to Ex. R3W1/6.
15. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
petitioner. Further, RE was closed vide order dated 12.01.2026 on
behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 and on 20.01.2026 on behalf of the
respondent no.3.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
16. The Petitioners filed his duly filled Form XIII and the
financial statements of all the petitioners were recorded. Final
arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners as well as
respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
17. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioners and Ld.
Counsel for respondents and perused the record. My findings on the
various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner suffered injures in an accident
that took place on 01.07.2024 at about 04:20 pm in front of Satya
Park, Near Sangam Colony, Girdhari Lal Goswami Marg, towards
Shadipur Red Light, Delhi involving vehicle bearing registration No.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:13:04 +0530MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 8 of 40
DL-1LAC-6272 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Lal
Jeet Choudhary, Owned by respondent no. 2 Praveen Kumar and
insured with respondent no. 3 Magma HDI General Insurance Co.
Ltd.?
18. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 01.07.2024 at about 04:20 pm, when
he was going on his motorcycle, which was being pushed by the
deceased on foot from his scooty, he reached in front of Satya Park,
Near Sangam Colony, Girdhari Lal Goswami Marg, towards Shadipur
Red Light, Delhi and the offending vehicle being driven by the
respondent no.1 hit the scooty of the deceased, due to which he fell and
the petitioner also fell. He received injuries.
19. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO in the present matter. The
petitioner has deposed all the facts on oath. He was duly cross
examined by the respondents at length but as such nothing contrary
could be brought out in his cross examination. Hence, it is stated that
rash and negligent driving of the respondent no.1 is proved on record.
20. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents that
in the present matter, the accident was caused due to the rash and
negligent act of the deceased as he was driving the scooty without a
valid driving license. The petitioner was also not carrying a valid
driving license at the time of the accident. Further, the motor-cycle
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.17
13:13:10
+0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 9 of 40
being driven by him was not road worthy. He has admitted that he was
taking the same to the repair shop. It is submitted that this by itself
constitutes a rash and negligent act. Hence, it is apparent that the
motor-cycle would have lost balance. Hence, the accident was caused
due to the negligence of the petitioner and his friends.
21. Further, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.
1 &2 that the accident was not caused by the respondent no.1. The
respondent no.1 had merely helped the deceased and his friends after
they fell and sustained injuries.
22. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
that admittedly the deceased and the petitioner were driving the two-
wheelers as mentioned above, but mere this fact shall not make the
petitioner liable for contributory negligence. An overt act which
constitutes rash and negligent act must be proved by the respondents. In
the absence of the same, the petitioner cannot be held guilty for
contributory negligence.
23. Record perused.
24. In the present matter, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have
alleged that they did not cause the accident. However, it is a matter of
record that the respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by the IO. The
petitioner has stated on oath that the accident was caused by the
respondent no.1. It is pertinent to mention here that in the proceedings
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:13:17 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 10 of 40
before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of evidence or
the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal
cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much lower than as
placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view
must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
25. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no. 1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of
the criminal record or the criminal record showing the
completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge
sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of
FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
26. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.723/24 2026.02.17
13:13:22 +0530
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 11 of 40
“……in view of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008,
contents of DAR has to be presumed to be correct and read in
evidence without formal proof of the same unless proof to the
contrary was produced.”
27. Further, it is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the
principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the
“accident speaks for itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR
and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on
the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident
which the respondents have failed to discharge. The respondent no.1
entered in the witness box as RW1. However, the Hon’ble High Court
of Kerela in “Kerela State Road Transport Corp. Vs. C. Soman Nadar
& Anr. 1984 ACJ 607 Kerela” has held that the statement of the driver
who caused the accident cannot be believed as his testimony was
interested and unaided by any corroboration.
28. In the present case also, the testimony of the respondent
no.1 is uncorroborated. Further, the offending vehicle was seized from
the spot. Along with the DAR, the IO placed on record the photograph
and videos taken by him from his mobile phone of the spot of the
accident, immediately after the accident. The injured persons can also
be seen in the video sitting at the pavement, tending to their injuries.
Further, perusal of the same shows that the offending vehicle had
damages on the front side. The bumper was broken. Hence, in the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:13:28 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 12 of 40
opinion of the Tribunal, the involvement of the offending vehicle is
prima facie made out.
29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27
& 28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes,
noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was
required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that
the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us,
filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2 prima facie
points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle
negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were
to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that
the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the
Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of
no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue
in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and
circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
record and manifestly wrong.”
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:13:34 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 13 of 40
30. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 281/125 (A)/106(1) BNS for rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and
circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the witnesses and the
documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2 was the
registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted
position that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no.
3.
Contributory negligence
31. It is alleged by the respondents that the petitioner is guilty
of contributory negligence as he was driving the motor-cycle without a
valid driving license. Further, it is stated that the motor-cycle was
broken and was being pushed by the deceased from his scooty. Hence,
he is liable for contributory negligence.
32. However, it was held in the case of Sudhir Kumar Rana
v Surinder Singh & Ors 2008 SCC OnLine SC 794 that:
“9. If a person drives a vehicle without a license,
he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion,
may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the
accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was
the driver of the mini-truck who was driving rashly and
negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24 13:13:41 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 14 of 40
possessing any license but no finding of fact has been
arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and
negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently
which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how,
only because he was not having a license, he would be held
to be guilty of contributory negligence.
10. The matter might have been different if by reason of his
rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.”
33. The Sudhir Kumar Rana (supra) case was affirmed in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V Puneet Bhatia (MAC
APP. 774/2017 & CM APPl. 41950/2018, 50140/2018 decided by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 11.12.2023 where the appeal was
rejected on the ground that merely because the driver did not have a
valid license, he cannot be said to be driving in a rash and negligent
manner unless rashness and negligence on his part is specifically
proved.
34. The dicta laid down in the cases of Sudhir Kumar Rana
(supra) as well as Puneet Bhatia (supra) make it amply clear that an
overt act of rashness and negligence had to be proved on behalf of the
injured and merely because he did not have a driving license, he cannot
be termed to have been riding his scooty in a rash and negligent
manner.
35. Similarly, on the same principle, admittedly the petitioner
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24
13:13:46 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 15 of 40
was driving a broken down motor-cycle which was being pushed by
foot by the deceased while driving the scooty, but the respondents
must prove that he was driving the motor-cycle rashly and negligently.
An overt act on his behalf must be proved, which has not been done in
the present case. Therefore, it is concluded that the injured suffered
injuries in the accident in question and also that there was no wilful
act, neglect or default on the part of the injured. Thus, the respondent
no. 3 has not been able to prove its defence that the injured was rash
and negligent.
The injury:
36. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. To prove the
same, the petitioners have relied upon the MLC of the petitioner, as per
which he was brought to RML Hospital with history of road accident
and had suffered injuries on his leg. As per the MLC, his injuries were
opined to be simple.
37. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to
rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that
due to the said accident, the injured Mr. Hemant Kumar Pahadia
suffered simple injury. Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour
of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:13:52 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 16 of 40
Issue no.2
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
38. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner.
In view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
& Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to
compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’
for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent
possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the
position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair,
reasonable and equitable manner. The Court or tribunal
shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude
from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some
conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and
its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss
which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means
that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which
he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have
earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan
Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs.
Willoughby – 1970 AC 467). Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:13:59 +0530MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 17 of 40
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing
food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains)
which the injured would have made had he not been
injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General
Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma
as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)
(a) and (iv).”
39. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the
accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:14:06 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 18 of 40
present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
40. The petitioner has not claimed any amount under this
head.
Loss of income:
41. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the
time of the accident, he was was working as a Sales Executive at Gaffar
Market, Karol Bagh and that he was earning about Rs. 25,000/- to Rs.
35,000/- per month. However, it is conceded as there is no income
proof available on record, his income may be assessed as per the
minimum wages applicable in Delhi. Further, it is stated that due to the
accident, he was unable to work for 3 months.
42. No proof income or employment was produced. However,
the copy of the marksheet of the 10th class of the petitioner is placed on
record, which is Ex. PW1/1. Hence, the income of the petitioner is
assessed as per the minimum wages payable to an unskilled person
matriculate level. The date of accident is 01.07.2024. As per the
relevant notification, minimum wages payable to an unskilled labour at
that time is Rs. 21,813/-. Hence, his monthly income is assessed to be
Rs.21,813/-.
43. As mentioned above, as per the medical record of the
petitioner, he had suffered simple injuries. He had suffered an abrasion
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24 13:14:12 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 19 of 40
and a lacerated wound. However, there is no record that he had been
admitted in the hospital at any point of time. In view of the nature of
the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it cannot be said that he would
have been unable to work. Hence, no compensation is awarded to him
under this head.
Special diet:
44. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards
special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping
in view the fact the facts and circumstances, it is understandable that he
must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure
towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
45. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on conveyance, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the
view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus,
the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance
charges.
Attendant charges:
46. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards
attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on attendant, however, considering his injuries, the petitioner is
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:14:22 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 20 of 40
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges.
Pain & Suffering:
47. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 1,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he
actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an
effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and
reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the
injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by
him etc., he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain
and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
48. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss
due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the
same but keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would
definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss due to Mental & Physical
Shock”.
Loss of amenities, Disfiguration, Loss of marriage prospects & Loss
of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
49. Nil
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:14:29 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 21 of 40
50. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Nil Monthly income of injured Rs.21,813/- Loss of income Nil Add future prospects Nil Loss of future income (income X Nil % Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 5,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs.
Suffering 20,000/- Loss of amenities Nil Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 35,000/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17 13:14:37 +0530 MACT No.723/24 Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 22 of 40
51. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru
@ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 30.09.2024 till
realization.
DISBURSEMENT
52. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month.
53. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated
07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh
Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following
directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be
added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of
the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants
shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint
account.
(ii) 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 claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24
13:14:43 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 23 of 40
place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the
permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque
book and/or debit card to claimants. 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 claimants so that no debit card be issued in
respect of the account of claimants from any other branch
of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque
books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not
be issued without the permission of the Court and the
claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court for compliance.”
54. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on
18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation
awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general
practice followed by the insurance companies, where the
compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same
before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a
direction can always be issued to transfer the amount
into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with
intimation to the Tribunal.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:14:49 +0530MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 24 of 40
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars
to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at
the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may
direct that the amount of compensation be transferred in
the account of the claimant and if there are more than
one then in their respective accounts. If there is no bank
account, then they should be required to open the bank
account either individually or jointly with family members
only. It should also be mandated that, in case there is any
change in the bank account particulars of the claimant(s)
during the pendency of the claim petition they should
update the same before the Tribunal. This should be
ensured before passing of the final award. It may be
ensured that the bank account should be in the name of
the claimant(s) and if minor, through guardian(s) and in
no case it should be a joint account with any person, who
is not a family member. The transfer of the amount in the
bank account, particulars of which have been furnished
by the claimant(s), as mentioned in the award, shall be
treated as satisfaction of the award. Intimation of
compliance should be furnished to the Tribunal.”
55. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioner. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
MACT No.723/24
2026.02.17
13:14:56 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 25 of 40
complied with.
56. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner,
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 39,358/-
(Rupees Thirty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Eight only),
the entire amount be released to the petitioner/claimant
immediately in his Bank Account no. 076601000067905 Indian
Overseas Bank, Naraina, JJ Colony, Delhi IFSC
Code:IOBA0000766, Customer ID 56666100.
57. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 01.07.2024 Name of the Injured: Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Age of the Injured: Presently 19 years Occupation of the Injured: Private Job Income of the Injured: Rs. 21,813/- pm Nature of Injury: Simple Medical Treatment taken: RML Hospital, Delhi Period of Hospitalization: Nil Whether any permanent: No disability? Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17 MACT No.723/24 13:15:02 +0530 Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 26 of 40 COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1. Pecuniary Loss: (I) Expenditure on Treatment Nil (ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 5,000/- (iii) Expenditure on Rs. 5,000/- Nursing/Attendant charges (iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 5,000/- (v) Monthly income of injured Rs.21,813/- (vi) Loss of income Nil (vii) Add future prospects Nil viii) Any other loss which may Nil require any special treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of his life 2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- = Rs. 20,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:15:08 +0530MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 27 of 40
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Nil
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 35,000/-
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous –
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 4,358/-
award w.e.f. 30.09.2024 till
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 39,358/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 56
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Nil
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 56
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 17.03.2026
award
LIABILITY:
58. It has been established that the offending vehicle was
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:15:16 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 28 of 40
being driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner
of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent
no.3. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that by
virtue of the amendment in Section 150 MV Act, as the respondents no.
1 & 2 were not having a valid permit at the time of the accident, the
respondent no. 3 insurance company is entitled to take the defence
under Section 150 (2)(a)(ii) MV Act. It is submitted that prior to the
Amendment of April, 2022, where any of the defences was available to
the company as stipulated under the Act, the insurance company had
the liability to pay the compensation amount and was entitled to
recover the same from the driver/owner. Now, the provision of pay and
recover has been deleted by the introduction of the Amendment Act,
meaning thereby that the defences, as provided in the Act, if proved on
record by the insurance company, then the insurance company shall not
be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
59. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that
the respondent no.3 issued a notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to the
respondents no. 1 & 2 to produce the valid permit but they failed to do
so. The same is proved as Ex. R3W1/3. Hence, the insurance company
is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case.
60. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner that the present case is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act,
which is a beneficial legislation.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24
13:15:23 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 29 of 40
61. Record perused.
62. It is a matter of record that by virtue of the Amendment
Act of 2022, the principle of pay and recover has been removed by the
Parliament. Our own Hon’ble High Court has taken a similar view in
Go Digit General Insurance Co. v. Mohd Javed MAC. App 416/2025
decided on 09.07.2025, in a similar matter, wherein it has observed
that:
“So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly
that appears to be an inadvertent error by the Ld. Trial
Court since, after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the
MV Act w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of
recovery rights is no longer available in the statute book.”
63. However, the said observations were given by the Hon’ble
High Court in a passing reference and is not a ratio decidendi.
However, in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Arti
Devi And Others 2025:AHC:14110 decided by the Hon’ble High
Court of Allahbad on 31 January, 2025, in a similar set of
circumstances, it was observed that:
“21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section
149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub-Section (4) of
Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully
examined, the words “shall, as respects such liabilities as
are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect” would only
mean that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24 13:15:29 +0530Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 30 of 40
(4), either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would
be well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the
insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would
be absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the
claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be
absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner’s risk.
Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive
and the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation
through indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to
recover from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate
liability shall have to be borne by the owner and not by
insurer. In such an event, there would be no financial loss
to the insurer as it would be compensated through recovery
from the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to
give defence to the insurer and have to be read to that
extent only and not to interpret as if the liability to
indemnify stands washed away. It therefore follows that
even if the proviso to sub-Section (4) would not have been
there before the amendment, the indemnification concept
would have still remained alive and operative and, hence,
mere omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of
2019 would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case,
liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the
Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing
grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act
prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.17
13:15:36 +0530MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 31 of 40
amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The
reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said
provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the
Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it,
i,e, holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to
have an award against the Insurance Company is distinct
from the situation where award is against the owner and
insurer is made liable to pay compensation to the claimants
and then recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of
premium as required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance
Act, 1938 has now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects
that even in a case where premium is not received by the
Insurance Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as
to avoid passing of award against it and, in that event also,
award would be drawn against the owner. When payment or
non-payment of premium is significant after amendment and
has been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that
a third party risk is covered under the policy which is a
contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the
insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy
continues to subsist to cover third party risk so long the
premium is received and non-payment thereof would absolve
the Insurance Company from its liability of an award being
passed against it.
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and
clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was
never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:15:43 +0530MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 32 of 40
compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions.
Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious
help to the accident victims and their families. The
emotional and social trauma caused to the family which
loses its bread winner, is still one of the special
considerations as set forth in the Statement above, The Bill
was brought with an object to replace the existing provisions
of insurance with simplified provisions in order to provide
expeditious help to accident victims and their families. There
is nothing in the Statement of Objects and Reasons which
may, either directly or indirectly, infer withdrawal of
insurer’s liability to pay compensation as soon as the award
is declared, even in case of occurrence of breach of policy
or other existence of similar grounds of defence available to
the insurer. Therefore, the purpose behind bringing
amendments in the Act of 1988 was clearly to provide
immediate financial help to the accident victims and their
dependents and not to create a situation where they are
made to run from pillar to post even after an award is
declared in their favour.
37. From the over all discussion made above, it is crystal
clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either
before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by
Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in
case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the
interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso
would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:15:49 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 33 of 40
the first instance would be too wild a proposition and would
result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out
of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the
claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount
of compensation through execution proceedings in one way
or the other, searching the owner through the process of
Court. In such an event, the claimants would face further
harassment and nobody knows that despite a money decree
in the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to
whether the claimants would ever be able to get the
compensation realized through recovery proceedings
directly from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent
becomes clear and there is nothing to support the insurer’s
arguments flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus
Omissus. The contention advanced on behalf of insurer
stands discarded.
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of
proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019),
neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the
claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the
owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected
by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall
continue to indemnify the owner’s risk in relation to
accidents taking place after 01.04.2022 and “PAY &
RECOVER” principle will still continue to govern the field
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:15:56 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 34 of 40
advancing social object of the Statute protecting third
party interest. Principle of law laid down by the Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran
Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109 has not lost its
significance and binding effect despite omission of proviso.
Held accordingly. “
64. Hence, in view of the above mentioned
observations, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioner and then the respondent no.3
shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the respondents no. 1
& 2. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
65. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand Eight
Hundred Thirteen only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of
filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 30.09.2024 till realization with the Civil
Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the
claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay
interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on
14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
66. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:16:02 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 35 of 40
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to
the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
17.03.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:16:09 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 36 of 40
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid &
Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the
records.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 17th February 2026 RUCHIKA Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:16:15 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 37 of 40
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 01.07.2024
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 30.09.2024
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
30.09.2024
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
20.08.2024
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 20.08.2024
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the 20.08.2024
insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
30.09.2024
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII
- Detail Accident Report 30.09.2024
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 30.09.2024
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his NA
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:16:23 +0530
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 38 of 40
DAR/claim petition?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the NO.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company?
If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 17.02.2026
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 30.09.2024
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the 20.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
MACT No.723/24
13:16:29 +0530
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 39 of 40
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statements of the
of passing of the Award to
claimants were recorded on 20.01.2026.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.17
13:16:42 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
17.02.2026
MACT No.723/24
Hemant Kumar Pahadiya Vs. Laljeet Choudhary & Ors. Page 40 of 40
