Delhi District Court
Pawan Kr(D)I(124/22/Tp) vs Pappu(Bajaj) on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010075932022
MACT No. : 447/2022
FIR No. : 124/2022
PS : Timarpur
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Mr. Pawan Kumar (Injured)
S/o Sh. Surender Sharma,
R/o J-211, Gali No. 13, Kartar Nagar,
4th Pusta, Delhi-110053.
...Petitioners
Versus
1. Pappu (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Sh. Het Ram
R/o H. No. 688, Laddu wali Gali,
Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
2. Bansal Trading Company (Owner of the Offending Vehicle)
Office at 922, Ist Floor, Ghanta Ghar,
Sabji Mandi, Delhi.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurer)
Block No. 4, 7th Floor DLF
Towers 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi-110015.
...Respondents
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.19
15:34:51
+0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 1 of 31
Date of filing of DAR : 10.05.2022
Judgment reserved on : 30.01.2026
Date of Award : 19.02.2026
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
10.05.2022 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 04.02.2022 at about 02:00 pm at
under Wazirabad Flyover, Outer Ring Road, Timarpur, Delhi. Mr.
Pawan Kumar suffered grievous injuries in the said accident which was
allegedly caused by vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LAF1774,
(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle). The said vehicle was
being driven by respondent no. 1 Pappu, owned by respondent no. 2
Bansal Trading Company, and insured with respondent no. 3 Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that
on 10.05.2022, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No.
55A, the investigation of present accident was marked to the IO/SI
Lalit. Thereafter, he along with HC Yatish went to the hospital vide Sr.
No. 1345/22 and MLC No. 265/22 namely Sh. Pawan Kumar. IO
recorded the statement of the injured in the hospital. Thereafter, FIR
was registered u/s 279/337 IPC. Thereafter, IO went to the spot with
injured and prepared site plan on his instructions. Both the accidental
vehicles were taken into custody and deposited into the malkhana.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
15:34:56 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 2 of 31
Further, IO took the ownership of offending vehicle. Thereafter, IO
served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending vehicle.
Upon this, owner replied that he was the AR of the offending vehicle
and the Bus was registered in the name of Bansal Trading Company.
Further, he replied that at the time of the accident Sh. Pappu was
driving the offending vehicle. Further, AR produced Sh. Pappu before
the IO. Thereafter, IO interrogated the driver of offending vehicle and
he accepted that the accident was caused by him. Thereafter, he was
arrested by the IO.
3. AR produced the documents of the offending vehicle
before the IO. Further, AR produced all the documents of offending
vehicle including DL before the IO. Thereafter, driver was released on
bail after producing surety. IO got conducted mechanical inspection of
both the accidental vehicles. IO also got verified the documents of the
offending vehicle from the concerned authority which were found
“correct”. Further, both the vehicles were released on superdari and
MLC was deposited in the hospital for final opinion. Doctor opined the
injury as “Grevious”. Thereafter, IO changed the Section 337 to 338
IPC. Thereafter, chargesheet was prepared against the accused namely
Pappu u/s 279/338 IPC, which was filed before the Ld. JMFC and DAR
was filed in the present case.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
4. No WS was filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2.
Their opportunity to file the WS was closed vide order dated
24.11.2022. Further, they did not appear before the Tribunal. Hence,
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 3 of 31
15:35:01 +0530
they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 16.05.2024.
5. Legal offer on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
28.11.2022, wherein it was admitted that the offending vehicle was
insured with the respondent no.3 vide policy no. OG-22-1149-1803-
00000574 for the period 04.07.2021 to 03.07.2022. An offer of Rs.
66,064/- was made to the petitioners but the same was not accepted by
the petitioners.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order
dated 04.01.2025, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. What amount of compensation is the petitioner
entitled to and from whom? OPP
2. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioner examined himself i.e. Sh. Pawan Kumar
as PW-1. PW1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is
Ex. PW1/A. He relied upon the following documents:
1. Medical treatment records which were Ex. PW-1/1 (colly
39 sheets) (wrongly mentioned as Ex. PW1/2 in the statement).
2. Medical Bills which were Ex. PW-1/2 (colly 18 sheets)
(OSR).
3. Disability certificate which was Ex. PW-1/3.
4. Copy of driving license which was Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR).
5. Copy of his PAN Card which was Ex.PW-1/5 (OSR).
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:35:12 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 4 of 31
6. Copy of his Aadhar Card which was Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. Attested Copy of DAR which was Ex. PW-1/7 (colly).
8. Copy of his employment records and pay slips which were
Ex. PW-1/8 (colly 12 sheets).
8. Thereafter, Sh. Manish Kulkarni, Finance Manager,
Finance Department, Himalaya Wellness Company was examined as
PW-2. He was the summoned witness in the present matter. He had
been authorized by Ms. Jayshree Ullal, COO of the company to depose
before this Tribunal. He proved the following documents:
a) The Power of Attorney in his favour was Ex. PW-2/1 (colly) (OSR) .
b) Attested copy of Appointment Letter dt. 14.03.2008 of the petitioner
was Ex. PW-2/2 (colly).
c) Attested copy of Promotion Letter dt. 01.04.2011 was Ex. PW-2/3.
d) Copy of salary slip for the month of December 2021, January 2022
and February 2022 was Ex. PW-2/4 (colly).
e) Leave records of Mr. Pawan Kumar was Ex. PW-2/5.
f) Attested Copy of Service book was Ex. PW-2/6 (colly) (OSR)
g) Copy of service rule book of the company duly accepted by Mr.
Pawan Kumar was Ex. PW-2/7. (OSR)
h) Attested copy of termination letter dt. 25.09.2023 was Ex. PW-2/8.
9. Both the witnesses were was duly cross examined by the
Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order
dated 08.01.2026.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
15:35:17 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 5 of 31
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
10. Legal offer was filed in the present matter on behalf of the
insurance company. Hence, RE was closed vide order dated
23.01.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. 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
12. 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:
What amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled
to and from whom?
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. As
the legal offer was filed by the respondent no. 3 in the present matter,
the factum of the accident and the rash and negligent act of the
respondent no. 1 was not disputed by the respondent no. 3. Hence, as
the said facts are admitted, the same are not required to be proved by
the petitioner.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
15:35:23 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 6 of 31
The injury:
14. 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 petitioner has relied upon his medical treatment papers Ex. PW-1/1
(colly). As per the Discharge Card dt. 14.02.2022 issued by Swami
Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi, the petitioner was admitted in the
hospital on 07.02.2022 with history of fracture in shaft of tibia and
fibula (both lower leg bones). He was discharged on 14.02.2022.
Further, he has proved on record his follow up treatment papers.
Further, there is a medical certificate dated 05.08.2022 whereby he has
been advised absence of duty for 2 months w.e.f. 05.08.2022 till
07.10.2022. Further, he was given a certificate dated 08.10.2022 that he
was fit to resume duty on 10.10.2022.
15. Two prescriptions dated 01.09.2023 and 12.09.2023 are
relied upon but the same are for chronic hepatitis B. Other prescriptions
dated 06.03.2023, 25.04.2023 and 10.06.2023 are proved which are
pertaining to back pain. There is nothing on record to suggest nexus
between the said diagnosis and the accident. Hence, the same cannot be
relied upon.
16. Then, the petitioner has relied upon his Disability
Certificate dated 11.01.2024 Ex. PW1/3 whereby he has suffered
permanent disability to the tune of 15% in his left lower limb. Hence, it
is proved that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries due to the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:35:27 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 7 of 31
said accident.
Compensation:
17. In view of the above observations, 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).
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 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 8 of 31
15:35:33 +0530
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).”
18. 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
present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
19. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 99,834.43 towards
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:35:38 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 9 of 31
medical expenses. Bills Ex. PW1/2 are proved for the same. Hence, an
amount of Rs.99,835/- is awarded towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
20. In this regard, it is submitted by the petitioner that at the
time of the accident, he was working as Pharma Sales Officer with M/s
Himalaya Wellness Company, Rithala, Delhi and earning a sum of
Rs.73,224/- pm.
21. To prove the same, the petitioner summoned the record
from the above mentioned company. Sh. Manish Kulkarni, Finance
Manager, Finance Department, Himalaya Wellness Company was
examined as PW-2. He proved the the attested copy of Appointment
Letter dt. 14.03.2008 and attested copy of Promotion Letter dt.
01.04.2011 of the petitioner as Ex. PW-2/2 (colly) and Ex. PW-2/3
respectively. He also produced the salary slips of the petitioner for the
month of December 2021, January 2022 and February 2022 which are
Ex. PW-2/4 (colly). The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for
calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax
should be treated as the actual income.
22. As per the said salary slips, the net salary of the petitioner
after deduction of income tax was Rs. 44,281/-, Rs. 69,696/- and Rs.
32,596/- respectively. Hence, there is a lot of variation in the salary
earned by the petitioner. Admittedly, he is an income tax assessee as his
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
15:35:43 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 10 of 31
income tax was being deducted by his employer. However, the
petitioner did not prove his ITR to show his actual annual income.
Hence, in the absence of the same, his income is ascertained as per the
average of the three months salary as proved by him. Hence, his
monthly income is assessed to be Rs.48,8587.66 (rounded off to
Rs.48,858/-).
23. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that due to
the accident, the petitioner was unable to join work and was terminated
from his employment vide Termination Letter dt. 25.09.2023 which is
Ex. PW-2/8. Hence, the petitioner has claimed loss of income for 6
months.
24. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3
that the petitioner was terminated from his service in September 2023.
Hence, he was being paid salary till September 2023.
25. Record perused.
26. PW2 Sh. Manish Kulkarni deposed in his cross-
examination that he was not aware if the petitioner had been paid salary
till September 2023. However, he produced the leave records of the
petitioner which were proved as Ex. PW-2/5, as per which the
petitioner remained on periodic leaves till 09.10.2022. Further, he had a
balance of 256 earned leaves as on 01.02.2022 and till 09.10.2022, he
used 211 leaves, which is equivalent to 7 months. Earned leaves are
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:35:50 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 11 of 31
generally encashable. Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to the loss
of the same.
27. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be
entitled to the loss of income for 7 months i.e. Rs. 48,858/- x 7 = Rs.
3,42,006/-.
Special diet:
28. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards
special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping
in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems that he
must have required special diet and must have incurred expenditure
towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to
the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
29. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- 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. 25,000/- towards conveyance
charges.
Attendant charges:
30. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- towards
attendant charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:35:57 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 12 of 31
on attendant, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the
view that the petitioner must have spent money on attendant thus,
the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant
charges.
Pain & Suffering:
31. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 3,00,000/- 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.50,000/- towards pain
and sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
32. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- 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.50,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss due to Mental &
Physical Shock”.
Loss of amenities:
33. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- under
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:36:04 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 13 of 31
this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but
keeping in view his injuries, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Disfiguration:
34. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- under
this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but
keeping in view his injuries, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
35. Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
36. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- under
this head. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the same but
keeping in view his injuries, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
37. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has suffered 15% permanent disability in his left lower limb.
Due to the same, he was unable to join his job and was terminated from
service. Even now, he is unable to work. Hence, his functional
disability may be considered as 100%.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:36:11 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 14 of 31
38. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“Where the claimant suffers a permanent
disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of
compensation under the head of loss of future earnings,
would depend upon the effect and impact of such
permanent disability on his earning capacity. The
Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage
of permanent disability as the percentage of economic
loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the
percentage of economic loss, that is, percentage of loss
of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability
will be different from the percentage of permanent
disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all
cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent
disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning
capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show
45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is
45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,
equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning
capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability
will result in award of either too low or too high a
compensation. What requires to be assessed by the
Tribunal is the effect of the permanently disability on
the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing
the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of
the income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:36:16 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 15 of 31
arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency).”
39. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the
disability suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. The
disability of the petitioner is not disputed. As per the Disability
Certificate Ex. PW1/3, the petitioner has suffered 15% permanent
disability in his left lower limb. The petitioner was working as a
Pharma Sales Officer and it is stated that due to the accident, he was
unable to join his job and was therefore, terminated from service. His
Leave records were proved as Ex. PW-2/5 for the period ending
December 2022. Perusal of the same shows that he was on periodic
leave till 09.10.2022, but then he joined office.
40. As mentioned above, the petitioner has proved his medical
treatment papers only till 09.10.2022. He himself has placed on record
a certificate dated 08.10.2022 that he was fit to resume duty on
10.10.2022. Further, as per his Leave records Ex. PW-2/5, no leaves
were taken by him in November 2022. He took only two leaves in
December 2022. Meaning thereby that he was fit to work and he did
work for two months. Further, as per his Termination Letter dated
25.09.2023, he remained on continuous leave from 07.02.2023 till then.
Hence, presumably, he was on duty in January 2023 also. Hence, in the
opinion of this Tribunal, the petitioner has failed to establish that he
was unable to work w.e.f. 07.02.2023 due to the accident.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:36:21 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 16 of 31
41. Nevertheless, in view of the permanent disability sustained
by him, his functional disability has to be ascertained. As per his
Disability Certificate, he has suffered 15% permanent disability in his
left lower limb. The disability in his leg shall naturally affect his
movement and ability to walk. The same shall slow him down in his
ordinary pursuits. However, the same shall not render him incapable to
earn, particularly, when he was doing an office job and not manual
labour. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, his functional
disability is ascertained to be as 15%.
42. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
petitioner to be Rs. 48,858/- at the relevant time. As far as the age of
petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, as per the petitioner’s
driving license Ex. PW1/4 and PAN card Ex. PW1/5, his date of birth is
05.04.1982. The date of accident is 04.02.2022. Hence, the age of
petitioner as on the date of accident was 39 years. Therefore, in view of
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla
Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6
SCC 121, which has also been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in
the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of ’15’ is held
applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner
arising out of his above disability.
43. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:36:27 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 17 of 31
future prospects of the petitioner should be taken as 50%, as he was
less 40 than years at the time of accident and as he was in a
permanent job, in view of the judgment titled as National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). The same is
accordingly applied. As already discussed in the preceding para, the
income of the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 48,858/-. In view of
the above, the loss of Income on account of functional disability is
calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 48,858/-
Annual Income Rs. 48,858/- x 12 =
Rs. 5,86,296/-
Add Future Prospects @ 50% Rs. 2,93,148/-
Total income Rs. 8,79,444/-
Disability @ 15% Rs. 8,79,444/- x 15%= Rs.
1,31,916.60
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 1,31,916.60 x 15 = Rs.
(15) 19,78,749/-
44. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that
the petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 19,78,749/- under the head
future loss of income.
45. 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 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
15:36:32 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 18 of 31
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 99,835/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 48,858/- Loss of income x 7 months Rs. 3,42,006/- Add future prospects 50%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 19,78,749/-
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 25,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 50,000/- Conveyance charges Rs. 25,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- =
Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/- Disfiguration Rs.25,000/- Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs.25,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 27,20,590/-
46. 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. Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:36:39 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 19 of 31
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 10.05.2022 till
realization.
DISBURSEMENT
47. 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. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month.
48. 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 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. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
15:36:44 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 20 of 31
(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.”
49. 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.
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:36:50 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 21 of 31
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.”
50. 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
complied with.
51. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner,
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 22 of 31
15:36:56 +0530
it is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 36,47,007/-
(Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven only), Rs.
6,47,007/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven only) be
released to the petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account
maintained at State Bank of India, Ghonda, Delhi bearing no.
41044209100, IFSC no. SBIN0006818, CIF no.85041713217.
52. The balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Lakhs only) shall be put in 60 monthly fixed deposits in his name in
MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 60 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the
facility of cheque book and ATM card.
53. 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: 04.02.2022 Name of the Injured: Pawan Kumar Age of the Injured: Presently 43 years Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19 15:37:01 +0530 MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 23 of 31 Occupation of the Injured: Private Job Income of the Injured: Rs. 48,858/- Nature of Injury: Grievous Medical Treatment taken: Swami Dayanand Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi. Period of Hospitalization: 07.02.2022 to 14.02.2022 Whether any permanent: Yes disability? COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1. Pecuniary Loss: (i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 99,835/- (ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 25,000/- (iii) Expenditure on Rs. 50,000/- Nursing/Attendant charges (iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 25,000/- (v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 48,858/- (vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 3,42,006/- (vii) Add future prospects 50% 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. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- = physical shock Rs. 1,00,000/- (ii) Pain and Sufferings Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19 15:37:07 +0530 MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 24 of 31 (iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.25,000/- (iv) Disfiguration Nil (v) Loss of marriage prospects Rs.25,000/- (vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- = hardships, disappointment, Rs. 1,00,000/- frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 15% permanent disability
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 15%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 19,78,749/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Compensation Rs. 27,20,590/-
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. 9,26,416.80 (rounded off to Rs.
award w.e.f. 10.05.2022 till 9,26,417/-)
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 36,47,007/-
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:37:12 +0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 25 of 31
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 51 & 52
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.30,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 51 & 52
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 03.01.2026
award
LIABILITY:
54. It has been established that the offending vehicle was
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. Hence, it is directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 1 is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
55. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 is directed to
deposit a sum of Rs. 27,20,590/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs
Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Ninety only) along with interest @
9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. w.e.f. 10.05.2022 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.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.02.19
15:37:18
+0530
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 26 of 31
56. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
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
19.03.2026 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.02.19
15:37:22 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 27 of 31
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
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 19th February 2026 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:37:28 +0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 28 of 31
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 04.02.2022
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 07.02.2022
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
N.A
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
N.A
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner N.A6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the N.A
insurance of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
N.A
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII
– Detail Accident Report 10.05.2022
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating NA
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 26.05.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes/legal offer
report within 30 days of the
DAR/claim petition?
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. 15:37:34 +0530
Page 29 of 31
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 19.02.2026
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 17.05.2022
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
30.01.2026
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:37:39 +0530MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 30 of 31
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 30.01.2026
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.02.19
15:37:45 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
19.02.2026
MACT No.447/2022 Pawan Kumar Vs. Pappu & Ors. Page 31 of 31
