Delhi District Court
Mohit vs Vishal on 11 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GUNJAN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-
CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No. 237/2023
CNR No.DLWT010027362023
Sh. Mohit
S/o Sh. Ram Lal
R/o House no. 3615/98, 2nd floor
B Block, Gali no. 98/4,
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi .
...Petitioner
Versus
1. Vishal Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Vipin Bhagat
R/o H. No. 62, Bharolla Village,
New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur,
Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi
2. Vipin Bhagat (Owner)
S/o Sh. Suresh Bhagat
R/o H. No. 62, Bharolla Village,
New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur,
Adarsh Nagar, New Delhi
3. ICICI Lombard General (Insurer)
Insurance Company Limited
Pritampura, Delhi
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.1 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:35 +0530
Date of Institution : 25.03.2023
Date of reserving order/judgment : 30.01.2026
Date of pronouncement : 11.02.2026
FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 10.03.2023
2. Date of filing of Form-I - 25.03.2023
First Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II 01.06.2024
to the victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III 01.06.2024
from the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV 01.06.2024
from the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- 01.06.2024
Interim Accident Report
(IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA 01.06.2024
and Form-VIB from the
Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - 01.06.2024
Detailed Accident Report
(DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay FAR was filed after a delay
or deficiency on the part of of around 15 days.
the Investigating Officer? If
so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the 12.09.2024
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated No
Officer of the Insurance
Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR?
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.2 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:02:38 +0530
12. Whether there was any delay No
or deficiency on the part of
the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Legal offer was not filed in
claimant(s) to the offer of the the present matter
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 11.02.2026
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 01.06.2024
claimant(s) was/were directed
to open savings bank
account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
Card and Aadhaar 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.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 02.12.2025
produced the passbook of
their savings bank account
near the place of their
residence along-with the
endorsement, PAN Card and
Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Shop no. 634, Gali no. 22,
Address of the claimant(s). Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
19. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
savings bank account(s) is/are
near his/her/their place of
residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.3 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:40 +0530
was/were examined at the
time of passing of the award
to ascertain his/her/their
financial condition?
AWARD
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
1.1 The present DAR was filed on 01.06.2024 by
Investigating Officer (IO) in the presence of the parties.
1.2 This DAR pertains to road vehicular accident dated
10.03.2023 which occurred at about 02:15 pm near Punjabi Bagh
Flyover, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS
Punjabi Bagh in which Sh. Mohit S/o Sh. Ram Lal (hereinafter
referred as "petitioner") sustained grievous injuries. FIR
No.143/2023 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered at PS
Punjabi Bagh.
1.3 As per the documents annexed with the DAR, the
injured Mohit has suffered grievous injuries in the road accident
due to rash and negligent driving, of Grey Honda Activa bearing
registration no. DL6SBC8963 (hereinafter referred as "offending
vehicle"), by respondent no.1. As per the documents annexed, on
10.03.2023, the petitioner was going to his office after collecting
blood sample from Model Town, Delhi. At around 2:15 PM,
when he reached at Punjabi Bagh flyover, New Delhi, the
offending vehicle which was being driven by the respondent no.1
rashly and negligently came from behind from the right side of
the petitioner and hit him on the right side, due to which, he fell
down and sustained injuries. The respondent no. 1 took the
petitioner to Parmari Hospital, Azadpur, Delhi and fled from
there. The petitioner called at 112 and the PCR arrived which
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.4 of 34
Digitally signed by GUNJAN GUPTA
GUNJAN GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:02:42 +0530
took him to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital where the petitioner
was given treatment. He was medically examined vide MLC No.
223756 dated 10.03.2023. In the final report annexed with the
DAR, respondent no.1 was charged with the offences U/s
279/338 of IPC.
1.4 DAR mentions the respondent no.01 as driver, the
respondent no.02 as owner and respondent no.03 as the insurer of
offending vehicle.
REPLY OF RESPONDENTS
2.1 No written statement was filed by the respondent
no.1 and 2 despite opportunity given and their opportunity to file
the written statement was closed vide order dated 08.10.2024
passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal.
2.2 Respondent no.03 filed the reply inter alia stating
that as per the charge sheet, when the Investigating Officer on
receiving DD NO. 88A dated 10.03.2023, proceeded to the place
of incident, he could not find the petitioner. It is stated that the IO
could not find him even at Parmari Hospital, Azadpur, Delhi and
later on, on the information of complainant Mohit, the IO
collected the MLC from Babu Jagjivan Ram Hosptial, Jahangir
Puri, Delhi and also recorded the statement of petitioner at his
house. It is stated that contrary to this, as per the statement of the
petitioner, the driver of the offending vehicle dropped him at the
Parmari hospital whereafter he was shifted to Babu Jagjivan Ram
Hospital by the PCR. It is further stated that though the
respondent no. 1 has been stated to have been arrested, the charge
sheet has been filed against respondent no. 2. It is further stated
that there is a delay in registration of the FIR by the police, the
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.5 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:44 +0530
delay in seizure of the offending vehicle and further delay in the
arrest of the driver and it appears that the driver has been
implanted by the police in collusion with respondent no. 1 & 2. It
is stated that the alleged offending Vehicle bearing registration
no. DL 6SBC 8963 was insured with it vide policy No.
3005/181980677/00/000 valid for the period from 01.10.2019 to
30.09.2024.
ISSUES
3. After completion of pleadings, on 08.10.2024, the
Ld. Predecessor of this tribunal framed following issues: –
1. Whether the injured Mohit sustained
injuries in the accident that took place on
10.03.2023 at about 02:15 pm at near
Punjabi Bagh flyover, Punjabi Bagh, New
Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle bearing registration
number DL6SBC8963 being driven by
respondent no.01, being owned by the
respondent no.2 and insured with the
respondent no.3? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and
from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
4.1 The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 to
establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
as Ex.PW1/A. He relied upon copy of his Aadhar Card as
Ex.PW1/1(OSR), Medical documents/bills/invoices as mark
PW1/2; Photocopy of his salary slip Ex.PW1/3 and Complete set
of DAR/criminal documents Ex.PW1/4 (colly) in his evidence.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.6 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:48 +0530
He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
4.2 No other witnesses were examined by petitioner.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
5.1 No evidence was led by respondent no.1 & 2. Vide
order dt. 25.09.2025, the right of respondent no. 1 & 2 to lead
evidence was closed on account of their non-appearance.
5.2 Respondent no.3 examined R3W1 Ms. Diksha
Manhas, Legal Manager as R3W1. She tendered her evidence by
way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A. She relied upon copy of Power of
Attorney in her favour as Ex.R3W1/1(colly), attested copy of
insurance policy as Ex.R3W1/2(colly), notice under Order 12
Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/3 and four postal receipts as
Ex.R3W1/4 in her evidence. She was examined, cross-examined
and discharged.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER
6.1 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the
petitioner has proved that the incident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the respondent no.01, the expenses of the
medical treatment of the injured and also the proof of income of
the injured. It is submitted that keeping in view the above, the
award may be passed by this Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of
petitioner.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT’S
NO. 1 & 2
6.2 No arguments were advanced by respondent no. 1 &
2.
ARGUMENTS OF Ld. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
NO.3
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.7 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:50 +0530
6.3 It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent
no.3 that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid
driving license to drive the offending vehicle on the date of the
accident. It was argued that as per the driving license of the
respondent no. 1 on record, the validity of the license is from
08.08.2023 onwards whereas the accident occurred on
10.03.2023. It was further argued that the date of occurrence of
the accident is after 01.04.2022 and, therefore, the respondent no.
3 cannot be made liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner
as after amendment of the Motor Vehicular Act, 1988 the right of
the insurance company to pay and recover has been done away
with.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
ISSUE NO.(1)
Whether the injured Mohit sustained injuries
in the accident that took place on 10.03.2023
at about 02:15 pm at near Punjabi Bagh
flyover, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle
bearing registration number DL6SBC8963
being driven by respondent no.01, being
owned by the respondent no.2 and insured
with the respondent no.3? OPP.
7.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that strict rules of evidence are not
applicable in an inquiry conducted by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal. The standard of proof is not as strict as in criminal
cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities only. In fact, the burden of proof
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.8 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:02:52
+0530
in a claim petition under the M.V. Act, is even lesser than a civil
case. Reference in this regard can be made to the proposition of
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of
“Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and Ors.” (2009) 13 SC 530, “Parmeshwari Vs.
Amir Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal
No.1082 of 2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
7.2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid legal preposition, this
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
its thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld.
Counsel for the parties.
7.3 The petitioner has deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 10.03.2023, at around 2.15 PM, when he was at
Punjabi Bagh flyover, Delhi, he was hit by the driver of a scooty
from his right side, which came from behind at a very high speed
and driven rashly and negligently. He has deposed that due to
this, he fell down and sustained injuries. He has categorically
deposed that the scooty was of Grey colour Honda Activa
bearing registration No. DL-6SBC-8963. He further deposed that
he was taken to Parmari Hospital, Azadpur, Delhi by the
respondent no. 1 and after that respondent no.1 ran away from
there. Thereafter, he called at 112 and the PCR took him to Babu
Jagjeevan Ram Hospital for treatment where he was medically
examined. He deposed that thereafter he took his treatment from
a private hospital and could not record his statement as he was in
shock and complete bed rest for 4 months. He further deposed
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.9 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:54 +0530
that the accident happened solely due to rash and negligent
driving of respondent no.01. He deposed that the FIR No.
0143/2023 was registered on his statement on 24.03.2023 against
respondent no. 1 & 2. The petitioner in his evidence has relied
upon his medical documents/bills/invoices mark PW1/2 and
complete set of DAR Ex.PW1/4 (colly) amongst other
documents. The petitioner had filed the original treatment record
of the petitioner including some of the documents marked as
Mark PW1/2, on 04.12.2025. On 17.01.2026, the counsel for
respondent no. 3 gave his no objection to the filing of the original
documents of the petitioner and stated that he does not want to
lead any further evidence to rebut the same.
7.4 Nothing favourable to the respondents came on
record during the cross-examination of the petitioner and
documents relied upon by him remained unrebutted during his
cross-examination. No cross-examination whatsoever was done
on the aspect of rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 in
driving the offending vehicle.
7.5 Further, the very fact that respondent no.1 was
charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Section
279/338 IPC with respect to the accident in question/FIR
No.143/2023 is in itself a strong circumstance to support the
testimony of PW-1 and sufficiently proves the complicity of the
respondent no.1 in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
The copies of the FIR, charge-sheet, MLC, site plan, seizure
memos of the vehicles, statements recorded u/s 161 Cr. PC,
notices issued U/s 133 of M.V. Act and their reply, also
corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.10 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:57 +0530
7.6 Even otherwise, respondent no.01/driver was the
best witness who could have rebutted the case of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle and could have thrown
some light as to how and under what circumstances, the accident
in question took place. However, respondent no.01/driver has
chosen not to step into the witness box during the course of
inquiry. In the given circumstances, adverse inference is liable to
be drawn against him, to the effect that the accident occurred due
to his rash and negligent driving.
7.7 Respondent no.3 has not led any evidence in support
of its contentions in its WS except on the aspect of driving
licence of respondent no.1. Even the IO and the respondent no.1
& 2 have not been examined by the insurance company. Also,
during arguments, the aspect of false implication was not
pressed. As regards, the contention in the WS, regarding delayed
arrest of respondent no.1, the same has been explained by the IO
and recorded in order dated 17.01.2026 and his explanation is
corroborated by documents on record. It is clear from the record
that initially in reply to notice u/s 133 of MV Act, the respondent
no.2 had stated that he was driving the offending vehicle on the
date of accident and when he was not identified in TIP
proceedings by the injured, a second notice u/s 133 MV Act was
issued to him, in reply to which he admitted that he had made a
wrong statement earlier to save his son (respondent no.1) and his
son was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident.
Thereafter, TIP of respondent no.1 was conducted whereupon he
was identified and later arrested.
7.8 As far as the delay in registration of the FIR is
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.11 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:02:59 +0530
concerned, it has been stated by the petitioner in his evidence that
due to the shock and due to he being on complete bed rest for 4
months, he was not able to give his statement. The said part of
the testimony has remained unrebutted in cross-examination. The
incident happened on 10.03.2023 and the FIR was registered on
24.03.2023. The petitioner who had suffered grievous injuries i.e.
fractures in the ribs and Clavical and who must have been in
severe pain cannot be expected to first take care of the legal
aspects. The petitioner has been discharged on 18.03.2023 and as
per the medical records of ESI Hospital, Rohini was advised
strict bed rest. Further, in the charge sheet filed by the IO, it has
been clearly mentioned that the information regarding the
accident was received through DD No. 88-A, however, the spot
of accident was not found and even the injured was not found at
Parmari Hospital and, therefore, the report was kept pending and
the FIR was registered on the complaint of the petitioner being
received on 24.03.2023 and upon procuring the copy of MLC
from Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi.
7.9 Perusal of record shows that MLC bearing No.
223756 dated 10.03.2023 of the injured was prepared in Babu
Jagjivan Ram Memorial Hospital, Delhi on the same date i.e.
10.03.2023 with alleged history of RTA.
7.10 In view of the above discussions, the delay in
registration of FIR cannot be imputed upon the petitioner, who on
account of his injuries was initially unable to pursue the matter
with the police and thereafter, got the FIR registered after
telephonically informing the police. There is sufficient material
available on record, as discussed hereinbefore, which proves the
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.12 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:02 +0530
involvement of the offending vehicle and its driver in the
accident in question. Hence, the delay in registration of FIR on
the part of police does not become fatal to the case of the
petitioner.
7.11 In view of the above discussion and considering the
evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
claimant has on the scale of preponderance of probabilities
proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in road accident on
10.03.2023 at about 2:15 pm near Punjabi Bagh Flyover, Punjabi
Bagh, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle bearing registration number DL6SBC8962 being driven
by respondent no.1. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in favour
of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. (II)
Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if yes, of what amount and
from whom? OPP.
8.1 In view of the findings on issue no.1, the petitioner
is entitled to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him
and the loss suffered by him due to the injuries in the road
accident. Before proceeding further to decide the present issue, it
would be apposite to encapsulate the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in its. Judgment in “Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar & Ors.” (2011) 1 SCC 343. It was held : –
“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
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.13 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:04 +0530
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).
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). It is only in serious
cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence
corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will
be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to
loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary
damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much
difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future
medical expenses – item (iii) — depends upon specific medical
evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof.
Assessment of non-pecuniary damages – items (iv), (v) and (vi) —
involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability
suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the
claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary
guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually
poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability – item (ii)(a). We are concerned
with that assessment in this case. Assessment of future loss of
earnings due to permanent disability.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.14 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:07 +0530
8.2 In view of the above law laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine 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. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the
claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads
of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. In
light of the above settled law, the amount of compensation to
which the petitioner is entitled is determined as under:
MEDICAL EXPENSES
8.3(i) The petitioner has filed medical documents/ bills/
invoices as Mark PW1/2 (colly) on record which include the bills
for treatment during hospitalization. On 04.12.2025, the
petitioner further filed the original medical treatment record of
the petitioner including the original final bill dated 18.03.2023 of
Nulife Hospital, copy of which was filed as a part of Mark
PW1/2. On 17.01.2026, the counsel for respondent no. 3 gave his
no objection to the filing of the original medical documents of
the petitioner and stated that he does not want to lead any further
evidence to rebut the same. Thus, the original medical treatment
bills filed by the petitioner stood admitted by the respondent no.
3.
8.3(ii) The total expenses incurred by the petitioner on his
treatment, as per the original bills filed on record is Rs.91,157/-.
Hence, injured/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 91,157/- on
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.15 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:09 +0530
account of medical bills/expenses. Accordingly, petitioner is
awarded Rs. 91,157/- on account of medical expenses.
ASSESSMENT OF EXPENSES TOWARDS FUTURE
TREATMENT
8.4 Petitioner has not claimed any amount required for
future treatment. Petitioner has also not filed any
document/medical evidence on record to show that petitioner
requires any future treatment, hence, petitioner is not entitled for
any amount under this head.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
8.5(i) The petitioner has placed on record his salary slip
for the month of February, 2023 as Ex.PW1/3. As per salary slip
Ex.PW1/3, the petitioner was a Runner with Expedient
Healthcare Marketing Pvt. Limited and his total earnings were
Rs.14,453/-. As per the FIR, the petitioner was on the date of the
accident, going to his office after collecting the blood samples
from Model Town. The same is a skillful job. As per the
minimum wages chart in the State of NCT of Delhi, the
minimum wages of a skilled person on the date of accident i.e.
10.03.2023 was Rs.20,357/-. Thus, the minimum wages
prevailing on the date of accident were more than the income of
the petitioner as can be ascertained from the salary slip for the
month of February, 2023. In the judgment of Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in “Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. ltd. vs.
Mohd. Naushad Alam & Ors.” MAC. APP No.558/2018, CM
APPL. 24479/2018, it was held that no person can be paid less
than the minimum wages.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.16 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:11 +0530
8.5(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured
needs to be considered as Rs.20,357/- per month on the date of
accident.
8.5(iii) As per the medical documents available on record,
the petitioner was hospitalized for 06 days and had suffered
“Right Clavical Fracture, fracture right sided ribs 3 rd, 4th, 5th, 6th
and wedging compression of D8 vertebral body”. The petitioner
had also taken further treatment till 30.06.2023. Also, perusal of
the original treatment record of ESI Hospital, Rohini filed by the
petitioner on 04.12.2025 shows that the petitioner has been
advised bed rest uptil 30.06.2023 and on 30.06.2023, he was
declared fit to join duty.
8.5(iv) Considering the nature of injuries, the period of
treatment and further considering that the petitioner would have
required sometime to join back his duties or to find some suitable
work for earning his livelihood, this tribunal is of the opinion that
injured/petitioner must have not been able to work for about 06
months. Accordingly, this tribunal grants compensation of sum
of Rs.1,22,142/- (Rs.20,357/- x 6) towards loss of income during
treatment period.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
8.6 Pain & suffering is a non pecuniary loss and cannot
be arithmetically calculated. It is a settled law that while
assessing compensation payable to petitioners on account of pain
& suffering, special circumstances of claimant have to be taken
into account including victim’s age, nature of injury, parts of
body where injuries occurred, surgeries, if any, duration of
hospitalization and treatment, the unusual deprivation suffered by
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.17 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:14 +0530
victim and effect thereof on his future life. As per the medical
documents of injured on record, the petitioner has suffered
grievous injuries and fractures in his ribs and Clavical. The
petitioner has also remained hospitalized for a few days. He was
advised strict bed rest. As per prescription dated 13.06.2023 of
the ESI Hospital, Rohini, it was only after 3 months (approx) that
he was allowed to sit. Thus, clearly, the petitioner must have
suffered acute pain & suffering during the treatment as well as
post treatment during the time of recovery. In view of the same
and considering the nature of the injury, the period of
hospitalization and the future follow-up treatment and the
suffering and the trauma undergone by him, the petitioner is held
entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and
sufferings to the petitioner.
SPECIAL DIET
8.7 The nature of injuries and treatment undergone by
the injured has already been discussed in the foregoing part of the
judgment. Thus, considering the same and further considering
that the petitioner must have required a long time to recover from
the injuries and would have required a protean rich diet, this
Tribunal deems it fit to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/-
towards expenses incurred on special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
8.8 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by
petitioner which have already been discussed in the foregoing part
of the award, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner must
have required the assistance of some attendant during the period of
hospitalization and recovery, may be that of his family members. It
is a settled law that for grant of compensation for attendant charges,
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.18 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:16
+0530
the necessity of employment of the attendant is not required and the
petitioner is required to be compensated even for value of services
of his family members. (refer: DTC & Ors. vs. Lalita, 1983 ACJ
253). Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards attendant charges.
CONVEYANCE CHARGES
8.9 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering the
nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and future
follow up treatment taken by him, this Tribunal grants
compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards expenses incurred on
conveyance.
THE TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED TO THE
PETITIONER IS AS UNDER:-
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical Rs.91,157/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of NIL
future treatment
3. Loss of Income during Rs.1,22,142/-
treatment period
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
5. Special Diet Rs.60,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.60,000/-
7. Conveyance Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.5,33,299/-
9. In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is
held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.5,33,299/- (Rupees
Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety
Nine Only).
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.19 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:19
+0530
LIABILITY
10.1 It is contended by the respondent no.3 Insurance
Company that driver/respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and
effective driving license at the time of incident. The respondent
no.3 has examined Ms. Diksha Manhas, Legal Manager as
R3W1. She has exhibited the copy of Power of Attorney in her
favour Ex.R3W1/1, Attested copy of insurance policy
Ex.R3W1/2, Notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC Ex.R3W1/3 and Four
Postal Receipts Ex.R3W1/4 in her evidence.
10.2 The copy of the driving license of the respondent no.
1 is a part of the record. Perusal of the same shows that the date
of first issue of the said license is 08.08.2023. Thus, clearly the
respondent no. 1 did not have a valid driving license on the date
of the accident. The same constitutes a violation of the terms of
the insurance policy issued by respondent no. 3.
10.3 Hence, it is established on record that respondent
no.1 was driving the offending vehicle in contravention of the
terms of the insurance policy and hence, respondent no.1 & 2 are
held liable. However, merely for this reason, the insurance
company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay the award
amount to the petitioner.
10.4 The MV Act is a social welfare legislation enacted
amongst other purposes for the benefit of the victim of Road
Traffic Accident and for speedy disposal of such cases. A mere
glance at the aims and objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 would show
that one of the main objective that the act aims to achieve is to
ensure expeditious help to accident victim and their families.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.20 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:21 +0530
The act provides compulsory insurance qua third party risk
making the insurance company liable to reimburse the insured in
case of any liability incurred by him towards third party, arising
out of motor vehicle accident involving his vehicle. The act aims
at providing compensation to the victim of the accident who have
suffered injuries ‘grievous or simple’ or the loss of their loved
ones to ensure that they are able to lead a decent life post
accident. Though the compensation awarded to a victim of a
accident under the MV Act cannot relegate the person to the
same position as he was in, before the accident, yet the financial
assistance provided to him in the form of compensation provides
some ray of light to him and enables him to lead a decent life
post accident. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the
compensation to which a victim of an accident is held entitled in
the judgment or an award passed by MACT Tribunal, is made
available to him without any delay and the victim is not made to
run from pillar to post to obtain the same and also does not have
to wait for years and years to receive the compensation. Any
delay in payment of compensation would amount to rendering
the provisions of the MV Act meaningless. It also cannot be lost
sight of that where the driver and the owner are the persons with
weak financial background, the payment of the compensation to
the victim would infact become impossible.
10.5 Recently, a similar issue was raised before the
Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in matter of “ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Vs. Arti Devi & Ors“, First Appeal
from order No.1780 of 2024. The Hon’ble High Court vide order
dated 31.01.2025 held that the principle of pay & recover would
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.21 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:24
+0530
still be applicable. The relevant part of the judgment is
reproduced here as under:-
“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 (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 till
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
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 hereof would absolve the Insurance Company
from its liability of an award being passed against it.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.22 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:27 +0530
23-24 xxx
25. The Court cannot overlook an aspect that Section 147(5)
of the Act, prior to amendment has been replaced by Section
147(6) of the Act after amendment but there are no qualifying
words referable to section 150. Sub-section (6) of section 147
reads as under:-
“(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under
this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of
persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which
the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those
classes of persons.”
From renumbering of the sub-section, as above, it follows that
once the liability to indemnify the person specified in the policy,
as per sub-section (6) of Section 147, even after amendment,
continues to exist in the Statute book and it excludes applicability
of any other law for the time being in force, indemnification by
the insurer does not vanish even after amendments incorporated
by the Act of 2019. The right to recover the amount paid to the
claimants as per conditions mentioned in section 150 would still
be available to the insurer as indemnification has not been taken
away by the legislature nor has it been explained by adding
words to section 147 or anywhere else.
26. This Court also finds that since the contract of insurance is
between insurer and the owner and has no concern with the
claimants who are in fact victims of the accident, language used
in Section 149 (prior to amendment) and Section 150 (after
amendment) would show that notwithstanding the fact that the
insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel the policy on account
of breach of terms thereof, it shall pay to the person entitled to
the benefit of the award. Therefore, whether Insurance Company
cancels or does not cancel an insurance policy, the same has
nothing to do with the claimants and they are entitled to get the
amount from insurer. It means that claimants’ right to receive
compensation from the insurer at the first instance is unaffected
by the inter-se rights and liabilities arising out of contract
between the insurer and the owner.
27. Words “no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub-
ection (1)” used either in Section 149 of the Act of 1988 (prior to
amendment) in Section 150 (after amendment) would mean that if
the grounds of defence set-forth in sub-section (2) of Section 149
or Section 150, as the case may be, exist, no sum shall be payable
by the insurer. It does not mean that the sum shall not be paid by
the insurer if the award contains a direction to the insurer to pay
and recover. Liability to pay the amount has to be segregated
from actual payment made by the insurer in case of survival and
existence of insurance policy issued under Section 147 of the Act.
Word “liability” has to be understood as the “final liability to
bear the award for all time to come” separate from concept of
indemnification by the insurer by making immediate payment.
28. xxx
29. Therefore, when the provisions of the Act of 1988 are read
with C.P.C., it becomes clear that as soon as an award is passed,
the claimants become entitled to get the amount of compensation
and they get financial relief even during the pendency of the
appeal filed by the insurer.
30. xxx
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.23 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:29
+0530
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 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.
32-37. xxx
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 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.”
Emphasis supplied.
10.6 From the above discussions, it is clear that the
exonerating the insurance company from the liability to pay the
compensation to the petitioner would render award meaningless
and would be against the benevolent provisions of the MV Act.
10.7 It would be also apposite to mention here that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in matter of “United India
General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Santro Devi & Ors” (2009) 1
SCC 558 has observed as under:-
“14. The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to
advance a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.24 of 34 Digitally signed GUNJAN by GUNJAN GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:32 +0530
doctrine. When a certificate of insurance is issued, in law, the
insurance company is bound to reimburse the owner. There cannot
be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance must fulfill
the statutory requirements of formation of a valid contract but in
case of a third party risk, the question has to be considered from a
different angle. It was further held that Section 146 of the Act gives
complete protection to third party in respect of or bodily injury or
damage to the property while using the vehicle in public place.
For that purpose, insurance of the vehicle has been made
compulsory to the vehicle or to the owner. This would further
reflect that compulsory insurance is obviously for the benefit of
Thirty party…”
10.8 It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in
“National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors“, a
question of law pertaining to interpretation of Section 149(2)(a)
(ii) vis a vis the proviso to sub-section 4 & 5 of the said Section
of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, as it then existed, was raised
before Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was argued on behalf of the
insurance company that the defences provided in Section 149(2)
must be allowed to be invoked by the insurer to its full effect and
once the defence is proved, the Tribunal should be bound to
discharge the insurer and affix the liability only on the owner and
driver of the offending vehicle without any directions to pay the
award amount and recover the same from the owner. The
hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment while referring to Section
149(1) of the MV Act as it then existed (now Section 150(1) of
the MV Act as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 2019 adopted a liberal approach to protect the rights of third
party and held that even if, the insurance company is able to
establish its defence under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, the
insurance company would be liable to satisfy the decree with the
right to recover the same from the owner. It was held that the
liability of the insurer arises from the contract as well as the
statute and therefore, it would not be proper to apply the rules of
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.25 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:35 +0530
interpretation of contract in interpreting a statute. It was held by
the Hon’ble Court:-
“Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable
only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an
independent provision and must be read in the context of Section
96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one
thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability
owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is
another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted,
the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as
sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor any effective
meaning can be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance
company contained in sub-section (1). The decision in Kamla’s
case (supra) has to be read in the aforementioned context.
Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a
liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The
insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and,
therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not
have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is
made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount
paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this
interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act
having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation
where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section
(7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the
Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said
provision must be read with sub- section (1) thereof. The right to
avoid liability in terms of sub- section (2) of Section 149 is
restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to
say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence
but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence
has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the
decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same
from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require
contextual reading.”
10.9 Section 149(1) of the MV Act, 1988 (as it existed
prior to the Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) has now
been renumbered as Section 150(1) of the MV Act 1988 (as
amended by Motor Vehicles (Amendment), Act 2019) and thus,
the said provision in its letter and spirit still exists on the statute
book, and, therefore, the judgment in Swaran Singh (supra) is
still binding upon this Tribunal.
10.10 It would also be apposite to reproduce the following
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.26 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:38 +0530
findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra):-
“The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in
these petitions are as follows:-
“(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing
compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a
social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to
victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The
provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are
with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be
so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed
under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii)-(vii). Xxx
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person
having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be
liable to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with
Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the
accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to
property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said
power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se
between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer
and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for
compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences
to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and
jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the
insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se
between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of
claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made
thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as
provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution
of the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal
arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved
its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2)
read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the
Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by
the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has
been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the
tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be
enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the
insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal
to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act
as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the
recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-
section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the
amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from
the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso
thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover
specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to
recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of
the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.27 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:41
+0530
extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by
relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where
on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter
se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.”
10.11 Thus, even in cases where the insurance company
has been able to make out a defence as per the provision of
149(2) [now Section 150(2)], the insurance company has been
held liable to pay the compensation amount and recover the same
from the insured.
10.12 In view of the foregoing discussion, the binding
precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Section 150 sub-
section 1 & 5 of the MV Act, 1988, Section 147(6) of the MV
Act, 1988 and the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad
in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited
(supra), the principle of pay & recover would still be applicable
to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the insurance company
is held liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as a valid
policy was effective on the date of the accident and shall also
be entitled to recover the said amount from the insured as per
contract between them. Hence, insurance company is
directed to deposit the award amount in favour of the
petitioners.
RELIEF:-
11. In view of the above discussion and findings on
issues, this Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs.5,33,299/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Two Hundred
and Ninety Nine Only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of filing the DAR i.e.01.06.2024 till the
date of the payment of the award amount to be paid by the
respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Respondent
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.28 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:43 +0530
no.3/Insurance Company is hereby directed to deposit the award
amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT Account of this Tribunal
having Account No.40711767202, CIF No.90891362578, IFSC
Code – SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi within a period
of 30 days from the date of passing of this award together with
the interest as stated herein above under intimation to this
Tribunal and under intimation to the petitioner. In case of any
delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum for the period of delay.
DISBURSEMENT OF AWARD AMOUNT
12.1(i) Statement of the petitioner in terms of provisions of
MCTAP was recorded on 02.12.2025. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement,
it is hereby ordered that out of the award amount, a sum of
Rs.2,33,299/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand
Two Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) shall be immediately
released to the petitioner through his saving bank account and
remaining amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only)
along with interest on the entire award amount is directed to be
kept in the form of FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) in the multiples
of Rs.10,000/- each for a period of one month, two months and
three months and so on and so forth, having cumulative interest.
12.1(ii) The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioner’s Saving Bank Account.
12.1(iii) All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid
directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to
be added in the savings bank account or fixed
deposit accounts of the claimant(s) i.e. the savings
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.29 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:45 +0530
bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an
individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint
account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by
the bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by
bank to the claimant(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited
by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT
bank account of the claimant (s) near the place of
their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque
book and/or debit card to claimant(s). However, in
case the debit card and/or cheque book have
already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The
bank shall debit card (s) freeze the account of the
claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in
respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any
other branch of the bank.
(f) 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.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the
bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the
bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimant(s)
is sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
13. Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis
Hazari Courts Branch is directed to transfer the award amount,
in the above-mentioned manner, as per award in the saving
bank account of claimant/petitioner, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules.
14. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph,
specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of
residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.30 of 34
Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:48 +0530
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi for
information and necessary compliance.
15. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS
on 20.03.2026.
16. A digital copy of this award be given to the parties
free of cost through email.
17. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority as per the procedure of Modified Claims
Tribunal Agreed Procedure (MCTAD).
18. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer 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.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall
also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 11th of February, 2026
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/11.02.2026
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.31 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by GUNJAN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13 17:03:51
+0530
FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 10.03.2023
2. Name of the injured : Mohit
3. Age of the injured : DOB: 20.05.1993
4. Occupation of the injured: Runner with Expedient
Healthcare Marketing Pvt.
Limited
5. Income of the injured : Rs.20,357/- per month(as
per Minimum Wages of
skilled person)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 10.03.2023 to 30.06.2023
8. Period of Hospitalization : W.e.f. 13.03.2023 to
18.03.2023
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? : No
If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on Rs.91,157/-
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.50,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.60,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.60,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of Income Rs.1,22,142/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Nil
may require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.32 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:53 +0530
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life NA
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or NA
loss of expectation of
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of NA
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NA
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.5,33,299/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.1,38,257/-
the date of award (w.e.f. 25.03.2023 to
11.02.2026 i.e. 2 years 10
months and 17 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.6,71,556/-
INCLUDING (Rs.5,33,299/- +
INTEREST Rs.1,38,257/-)
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.33 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:55 +0530
18. Award amount released Rs.2,33,299/-
19. Award amount kept in Rs.3,00,000/- + accrued
FDRs interest
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 20.03.2026
compliance of the
award.
(GUNJAN GUPTA)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/11.02.2026
Mohit vs. Vishal Kumar & Ors.
[MACT No.237/2023] Page No.34 of 34
GUNJAN Digitally signed by
GUNJAN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2026.02.13
17:03:57 +0530