Delhi District Court
Uttam Singh Negi (Dar) vs Arjun Lal (145/23 Jp) on 30 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.:345/2024
FIR no. 345/2024
PS Jaitpur
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01 -002921-2023
Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Arjun Lal Jaat & ors.
Uttam Singh Negi
S/o Pratap Singh Negi
R/o W-112, Greater Kailash -I, Delhi -48
.....Petitioner
Versus
1. Arjun Lal Jaat
S/o Sh. Ramchandra Jat
R/o Hatheepura, PO Kabrada,
Distt. Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Presently
at New Delhi.
.....R-1/ Driver
2. Kapil Walia
S/o Rajinder Prasad Walia
R/o H. No. 65-67, New Rohtak Road,
Karol Bagh, Central Delhi.
.....R-2/ Owner
3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
1st floor, Core -3,Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi.
....R-3/ Insurance Co.
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 1 of 43
Date of accident : 23.02.2023
Date of filing of petition : 25.07.2023
Date of filing of DAR : 27.07.2023
Date of Decision : 30.04.2026
AWARD
1. DAR
(a) In this case, a Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter
referred as DAR) was filed by IO in terms of provisions of Motor
Vehicle Act, which is treated as Claim Petition under Section 166
(1) read with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged
accident of Uttam Singh Negi (hereinafter referred as claimant)
by vehicle bearing Reg. No. PB 13BC 0348 (hereinafter referred
as offending vehicle), which was driven by Sunil (hereinafter
referred as R-1), owned by Kapil Walia (hereinafter referred as
R-2) and insured with M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred as R-3).
2. Brief Facts of DAR:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident and
admission of the injured came to the knowledge of the police on
23.02.2023. The MLC of the injured was collected, and his
statement was recorded on 03.03.2023, wherein he stated that on
23.02.2023 he was proceeding towards Sarita Vihar from Khadda
Colony on his scooty bearing no. DL-3SDX-4460. At about
01:00 PM, when he reached near Pir Baba Mazaar, Nala Road,
the offending truck struck his scooty from behind and fled from
the spot, causing injuries to both his legs. It was further stated
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 2 of 43
that a pedestrian present at the spot had taken photographs of the
offending vehicle and the injured was thereafter shifted to Apollo
Hospital.
(b) On the basis of the MLC and the statement of the injured,
the FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer carried out all requisite steps including
preparation of site plan, inspection of the place of occurrence,
collection of medical documents, and recording of statements of
witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The offending vehicle was
traced and mechanically inspected, and notice under Section 133
of the Motor Vehicles Act was served upon the registered owner,
who disclosed the name of the driver at the relevant time. The
identity of the driver was thus established and he was
interrogated. Upon completion of investigation, sufficient
material was found indicating that the accident had occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the
driver. Consequently, a charge-sheet was filed before the
concerned court for the offences punishable under Sections
279/338 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Claim
Petition was also filed on 25.07.2023.
3. Reply:
(a) The respondents no.1 (driver) and no.2 (owner) have filed
their joint written statement/reply, wherein they have denied the
allegations made in the claim petition. It is submitted that the
accident did not occur in the manner as alleged by the petitioner
and that the answering respondents have been falsely implicated
in the present case. It is further stated that the alleged accident, if
any, took place due to the negligence of the injured himself and
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 3 of 43
not on account of any rash or negligent driving on the part of
respondent no.1. The respondents have, however, admitted that
respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle and
respondent no.2 is the registered owner of the said vehicle. It is
further submitted that the offending vehicle was duly insured at
the time of the alleged accident and the driver was holding a
valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, it is prayed that
in case any liability is fastened, the same be indemnified by the
insurer. All other averments made in the claim petition have been
denied as false and incorrect, and dismissal of the claim petition
has been prayed for.
(b) The insurance company, while admitting the existence of a
valid insurance policy covering the offending vehicle on the date
of the accident, has taken certain statutory defences. It is
contended that there was an unexplained delay of 11 days in
registration of the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the manner
of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle. It is
further pleaded that at the time of the accident, the offending
vehicle was being driven in violation of policy conditions, as the
driver did not possess a valid and effective permit to drive the
offending vehicle. On these grounds, the insurance company has
sought to avoid its liability or, in the alternative, prayed for
recovery rights against the owner and driver in case
compensation is awarded to the claimant.
4. Issues:
(a) Upon pleadings of parties, following issues are framed
vide order dated 13.08.2024:
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 4 of 43
(i) Whether the injured suffered injury in a road traffic
accident on 23.02.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle no. PB 13BC 0348 being driven by R-1, owned by
R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP
(ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if
so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
(iii). Relief.
5. Disability Certificate noticing 72% permanent physical
disability in relation to right lower limb received from Pt. Madan
Mohan Malviya Hospital.
6. Evidence:
(a) The matter was listed for evidence. PW-1, the
injured/victim, Uttam Singh Negi tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) and placed his reliance upon relevant
documents pertaining to his identity, treatment records and
criminal case records as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4. He was further
cross examined at length by counsel for R-1 & R-2 as well as
counsel for insurance company. Petitioner Evidence was
thereafter closed and matter is thereafter listed for evidence on
behalf of respondents.
(b) R1W1 Arjun Lal Jaat appeared in the witness box and
tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A and placed his
reliance upon DAR (already Ex.PW1/2). R1W1 was cross
examined on behalf of counsel for claimant as well as counsel for
insurance company.
(c) R1W2 Sh. Pritam Singh, Assistant Engineer, Delhi Jal
Board was examined as summoned witness to explain the status
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 5 of 43
of offending vehicle on the date and time of accident. He was
also cross examined on behalf of counsel for claimant as well as
counsel for insurance company.
(d) Insurance Company also led evidence in its defence and
called its witness Mr. Digvijay Singh, Assistant Manager as
R3W1 in the witness box. He tendered his evidentiary affidavit
as Ex.R3W1/1 to Ex.R3W1/5. This witness was cross examined
on behalf of R-1 & R-2.
(e) Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was
subsequently listed for Final Arguments.
7. Final arguments:
(a) Counsel for claimant argued that the accident in question
had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of offending vehicle. He further submitted that the driver
has already been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under
Sections 279/338 IPC, which itself shows that the investigating
agency, after due inquiry, found sufficient material against him.
It is contended that the injured/claimant Uttam Singh Negi was a
young person and was earning his livelihood by supplying
medicines on his bike and was the sole bread earner of his
family. Due to the accident, he suffered grievous injuries and has
been left with 72% permanent disability in relation to his right
lower limb. It is argued that because of such disability, his
functional capacity has been severely affected and he is no longer
able to perform his earlier work which required mobility and
physical effort. It is further submitted that the injured is not even
able to stand properly and therefore his future earning capacity
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 6 of 43
has been substantially reduced and he deserves just and fair
compensation under all heads.
(b) Per contra, counsel for R-1 and R-2 argued that the
offending vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case
only to extract compensation. It is contended that as per the own
version of injured, he has not seen the offending vehicle hitting
him from behind and therefore the identity of the vehicle is
doubtful. It is further argued that the person namely Sameer, who
allegedly took photographs of the offending vehicle, has not been
examined before this Tribunal and therefore the said photographs
cannot be relied upon. It is also pointed out that there is no date
and time mentioned on the photographs and hence the possibility
of photographs being taken at a later stage cannot be ruled out. It
is further argued that there is no CCTV footage to support the
case of claimant and therefore the entire case is doubtful.
(c) Counsel for the insurance company has argued that even if
the accident is proved, the insurance company is not liable to
indemnify as there is breach of policy conditions. It is submitted
that the offending vehicle was being plied without valid permit
and fitness certificate at the time of accident. It is further argued
that during the course of proceedings, counsel for R-1 and R-2
has admitted that the authorisation of permit and fitness was not
valid on the date of accident and statement to this effect has also
been recorded before this Tribunal. Therefore, the insurance
company has prayed that it be either exonerated from liability or
in the alternative be granted recovery rights against the owner
and driver. Written Submissions also filed.
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 7 of 43
8. Discussion:
Issue no.1
(i) Whether the injured suffered injury in a road traffic accident
on 23.02.2023 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.
PB 13BC 0348 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured
with R-3? OPP
(a) In the present case, the injured/claimant Uttam Singh Negi
examined himself as PW-1 and deposed by way of affidavit that
on 23.02.2023 at about 01:00 PM, he was proceeding towards
Sarita Vihar on his scooty bearing no. DL-3SDX-4460 and when
he reached near Peer Baba, Nala Road, Jaitpur, the offending
vehicle came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and hit
his scooty with force, due to which he fell down and sustained
injuries. He further deposed that the driver of offending vehicle
fled from the spot and one person namely Samir took
photographs of the offending vehicle and also helped him in
reaching hospital. During cross examination, he stated that he
was wearing helmet and though he had not seen the offending
vehicle hitting him from behind, he clarified that photographs of
offending vehicle were shown to him by said Samir. He also
stated that he had noticed the offending vehicle from backside
having machine loaded on it.
(b) The medical record placed on file shows that the injured
was taken to hospital on the same day i.e. 23.02.2023 at about
02:35 PM and MLC records history of road traffic accident
caused by a truck. The nature of injuries noted are degloving
injury on right foot and ankle alongwith other abrasions. The site
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 8 of 43
plan prepared during investigation reflects the place of accident
at the same location as stated by claimant. Mechanical inspection
reports of both vehicles also show fresh damages. DD entry
recorded on the same day also shows that information of accident
had reached the police immediately.
(c) The statement of eye witness Samir recorded during
investigation also supports the version of claimant. He has stated
that the offending vehicle was coming at high speed and hit the
scooty of injured from behind/right side and thereafter fled away.
He also stated that he had taken photographs of the offending
vehicle and tried to stop the driver. Another witness Prem Anand
also supported that the offending vehicle was stopped for some
time but later fled away.
(d) Per contra, the driver Arjun Lal Jaat appeared as R1W1
and denied the accident and took a plea that the offending vehicle
was stationed at Delhi Jal Board site in connection with work
order no. 603 dated 08.02.2023 and was not on road. He also
alleged that the photographs are fake. However, during cross
examination, he admitted that a criminal case is pending against
him and he has not made any complaint regarding alleged false
implication. He also could not confirm whether the vehicle was
having valid permit.
(e) R1W2 Pritam Singh, Assistant Engineer, Delhi Jal Board
was examined to support the plea of alibi and he produced
measurement book to show that work was being carried out from
22.02.2023 to 03.03.2023. However, during cross examination,
he admitted that the work order as well as measurement book
does not mention the registration number of the vehicle. He
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 9 of 43
further admitted that the vehicle was not under personal
supervision of Delhi Jal Board officials and after completion of
work, the driver was free to move the vehicle. He also stated that
entries in measurement book are made by him and site supervisor
and there is possibility of making entries even on holidays.
(f) It is also noted that R1W2 has deposed that he had not
taken permission from his department to depose before the
Tribunal, which somewhat dilutes the official character of his
testimony. Further, he admitted that he knows Kapil Walia,
owner of R & K Infra, for many years and also conceded that
both of them were accused in a CBI case. In these circumstances,
the possibility of the witness being interested or tutored cannot
be ruled out. In this background, the entry on page no. 57 of
measurement book, particularly mentioning location at the top,
becomes doubtful and possibility of same being added later on
cannot be completely ruled out.
(g) This Tribunal has considered the entire material on record.
The plea of alibi taken by R1W1 was required to be proved by
cogent and convincing evidence. However, in the present case,
the record produced by R1W2 does not establish that the
offending vehicle bearing the specific registration number was
stationed at the site. Further, the witness himself has admitted
absence of continuous supervision, thereby leaving open the
possibility of movement of vehicle. The record relied upon is
internal in nature and not supported by any independent
corroboration.
(h) On the other hand, the version of claimant is supported by
contemporaneous medical record, DD entry, site plan,
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 10 of 43
mechanical inspection report and statements of independent
witnesses recorded during investigation, which collectively
establish the occurrence of accident in the manner stated.
(i) So far as delay of 11 days in registration of FIR is
concerned, it is observed that information regarding the accident
had already reached the police on the same day vide DD entry.
The delay appears to be procedural in nature including
jurisdictional aspects and collection of medical documents. It is
settled that such delay is not fatal in motor accident cases when
the accident is otherwise proved.
(j) Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion
that the respondents have failed to prove the plea of alibi and the
same is hereby rejected. The material on record clearly
establishes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by R1W1. Hence, Issue No.1 is
decided in favour of claimant and against the respondents.
(k) It is settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant
step towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of
the offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the
case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ
287 Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr
SLP (C) No. 10351/2019).
(l) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 11 of 43
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. This view has been supported in the judgments of
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &
Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum & Ors. v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287.
(m) All material on record, including GD entries, FIR, charge-
sheet, mechanical inspection reports, findings, also as no attempt
has been made by the contesting respondents to set up any
defence support the necessary inference that the accident
occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending
vehicle. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimant and against
the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
9. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 12 of 43
as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes
a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
.
.
.
10. “….Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
battered.” {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited
Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes
that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone.
Something which remains as an indelible permanent signs of an
unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some
monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly
scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through
the entire process post accident and the unintended but
compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed
painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the
damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the
body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family
members also.
11. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small
attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the
hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring
some elbow space for him to move towards stability and
normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle
remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as
equivalent in money.
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 13 of 43
12. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to
assess ‘just’ compensation with the object of putting the sufferer
in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been
if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce
certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case
of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004
KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370-
5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in
mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation,
at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money
cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a
shattered human physical frame as under:
“16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while
assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant
circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing quantification of
compensation. Further, they have to approach the issue of awarding
compensation on the larger perspectives of justice, equity and good
conscience and eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There
should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the
possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of all
human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are extensions
of this primary right, while awarding compensation for bodily
injuries. Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation which entitles
a claimant to damages. The amount of damages varies according to
gravity of injuries.”
13. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a
methodology known to law as social and legal security to a
victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual
ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is
understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss
is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset
with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore,
complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 14 of 43
possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and
as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty
of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still
holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The
observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re
1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and
reproduced as under:
“……Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is
one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay
down any principle upon which you can give damages;
nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in
place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money
shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most
familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure
pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest
that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what
is the exact amount of money which would represent such
a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has
undergone by reason of an accident……. But nevertheless
the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may
be given”
14. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra)
where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone
Vs. Rawyards Coal Company (1880) 5 APP CAS 25 were
referred as under:
“…….where any injury is to be compensated by damages,
in settling the sum of money to be given… you should as
nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will put
the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he
would have been if he had not sustained the wrong….”
15. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of
Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
“41…..Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that
the measures of damages in all these cases ‘should be such
as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply
atoned for his misadventure’. The observation of Lord
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 15 of 43
Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt
a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a
fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to ‘hold up
his head among his neighbours and say with their approval
that he has done the fair thing’ is quite opposite to be kept
in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal
injury cases.”
16. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only
for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from
the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close
as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16
SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It
is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor
Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of
the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support
drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
17. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated
for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those
natural 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 (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred
and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent
pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India
Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
18. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt objective
assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or
whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 16 of 43
reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be
inevitable. {support drawn from Raj Kumar (supra) as referred
and relied in Sidram (supra)}.
19. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived
with precise mathematical calculations and that much depends
upon peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India elaborated upon the expression “which
appears to it to be just” in the case of Divisional Controller,
KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
20. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights
into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination
of quantum of compensation. The relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
“10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while
determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the
sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to
lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much
as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing
compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad-
based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there
cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to
determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of
compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation”
should be inhered.”
21. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary
and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755, it is worthwhile to
reproduce certain observations made therein:
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 17 of 43
“9….while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely
to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the
loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able
to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of
life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life.”
22. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal
injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further
discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
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
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 18 of 43
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.
7. 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. Decisions of this Court and the 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.
23. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
A. Expenditure of Medical Bills- The claimant has placed on
record copy of medical bills which are exhibited as Ex. PW1/3.
The said bills bear endorsement ‘OSR’, which indicates that the
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 19 of 43
originals were produced and seen at the time of exhibition of
documents. Accordingly, the same are taken into consideration.
The total of the medical bills comes to Rs. 25,952/-, which
appears to be supported by the record. Hence, an amount of
Rs. 25,952/- is awarded to the claimant under the head of medical
expenses.
(B) Expenditure on Conveyance- The claimant has deposed that
he had spent an amount of about Rs. 1,00,000/- on conveyance
during the period of treatment and for visiting various medical
facilities. In support, he has placed on record certain receipts of
cab drivers amounting to Rs. 29,867/-. It is noted that three of
such receipts pertain to travel from Apollo Hospital to Pathani,
Uttarakhand. During his cross examination, the claimant has
clarified that he is originally resident of Uttarakhand. Although,
the address mentioned on his Aadhaar Card reflects Delhi,
however, it is quite probable and natural that after sustaining
such serious injuries, the claimant would have gone to his native
place for better care, family support and assistance during
recovery period. It is a matter of common experience that in
cases of grievous injuries, the injured often shifts to his native
place where proper care and support system is available. The said
fact, therefore, cannot be viewed with suspicion. Further, the
receipts filed on record have not been specifically disputed by the
respondents. At the same time, it is also seen that the entire
claimed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is not fully supported by
documentary evidence. Considering the nature of injuries, period
of treatment, travel between hospital and native place and overall
circumstances, a reasonable and just amount is required to be
awarded. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- isMACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 20 of 43
awarded to the claimant under the head of conveyance charges.
(C) Expenditure on Special Diet- The claimant has deposed that
he had spent an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on special diet during
the course of his treatment. As per discharge summary of Apollo
Hospital (filed with DAR), the injured remained hospitalized
from 23.02.2023 to 04.04.2023 and was treated for extensive
degloving crush injury of right lower limb alongwith laceration
on left foot and had undergone operative procedures including
debridement of right lower limb and skin grafting of right foot. In
such kind of serious injuries, proper and protein rich diet
becomes necessary for healing of wounds, recovery after surgery
and regaining strength, especially when there is prolonged
hospitalization and post operative care. Though no documentary
proof has been filed for such expenses, however, considering the
nature of injuries and treatment taken, it can be safely presumed
that the claimant must have incurred expenditure on special diet.
Accordingly, a reasonable sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the
claimant under this head.
(D) Expenditure on Attendant Charges: The claimant has deposed
that he had incurred an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards attendant
charges during the period of his treatment and recovery. Though
no documentary proof has been filed in this regard, however, as
per discharge summary of Apollo Hospital, the injured remained
hospitalized from 23.02.2023 to 04.04.2023 and had suffered
extensive degloving crush injury of right lower limb and
laceration on left foot, for which he underwent surgical
procedures including debridement and skin grafting. In such
circumstances, it is quite evident that the claimant would have
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 21 of 43
required assistance of an attendant not only during
hospitalization but also during post operative period for day to
day activities. The nature and gravity of injuries itself support the
requirement of continuous assistance. Accordingly, the amount
claimed appears to be reasonable and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is
awarded to the claimant under the head of attendant charges.
(E) Loss of earning during the period of treatment: The
injured/claimant Uttam Singh Negi has deposed that he was
earning Rs. 20,000/- per month by working as a medicine
supplier and has also specified that he used to supply medicines
such as boric powder. During his cross examination by counsel
for R-1 and R-2, he clarified that he had not received any
appointment letter from his employer and that he was getting
salary in cash of Rs. 20,000/- alongwith incentives. He has also
disclosed that he was 5th class pass. It is further noted that a
valid driving license of the claimant has been filed along with
DAR. The scooty driven by the injured at the time of accident
belonged to Pooja Anand, who confirmed to the police that she
had given the said vehicle to her worker i.e. the claimant. The
statement of husband of the owner of the scooty was also
recorded during investigation by the IO, wherein he stated that he
was engaged in medical profession and the claimant was working
with them.
Although, the claimant has not been able to prove his exact
income or employment by way of documentary evidence nor has
he examined his employer in the witness box, however, from the
material on record and statement of independent witness
recorded during investigation, it can be inferred that the claimant
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 22 of 43
was engaged in work of medicine supply which requires some
degree of skill. Considering the overall circumstances and the
driving license on record, the income of the claimant is required
to be assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to
skilled worker in Delhi on the date of accident i.e. 23.02.2023.
The minimum wages at the relevant time were Rs. 20,357/- per
month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant is taken
as Rs. 20,357/- for the purpose of computation.
The claimant has deposed that due to the injuries sustained
in the accident, he remained unable to work for a considerable
period. As already noted, the injured had suffered extensive
degloving crush injury of right lower limb and remained
hospitalized from 23.02.2023 to 04.04.2023 and also required
surgical procedures including debridement and skin grafting. It is
further noted that he had required blood transfusion twice, and
documents to this effect have also been placed on record, which
shows the seriousness of his condition. Though there are no
extensive follow-up treatment records except discharge summary,
some blood examination reports, radiology reports and medical
bills have been filed, however, the medical bills clearly indicate
that the claimant remained under medication for several months
after the accident.
Considering the nature of injuries, prolonged
hospitalization, requirement of surgeries, blood transfusions and
continued medication, it can safely be inferred that the claimant
would not have been in a position to resume his work for a
substantial period. Accordingly, the loss of income of the
claimant is assessed for a period of six months. Taking his
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 23 of 43
monthly income as Rs. 20,357/-, the loss of income is calculated
as 1,22,142/- (Rs. 20,357/- x 6), which is awarded to the claimant
under this head.
(F) Loss of future earning: It is settled that a person is required to
be compensated not just for the physical injury but also for the
loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he might entail for
the rest of his life on account of those injuries which he sustained
in the accident. This necessarily means that he is required to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy normal amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the
injury, his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could
have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K.
Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(i) Disability Certificate noticing 72% permanent physical
disability in relation to right lower limb received from Pt. Madan
Mohan Malviya Hospital.
(ii) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as
to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has
been delved into by Hon’ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
“8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability
refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a
person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 24 of 43
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result
of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from
motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Act”,
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)
of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose
of claiming compensation.”
(iii) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 25 of 43
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(iv) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(v) Hon’ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal
to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for
the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of
Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the
purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an
extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45%
permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of
a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot
be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If
there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 26 of 43
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent
of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140%
(that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have
suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof
expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to
the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. 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, the 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.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent 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 terms of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]
and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and
decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 27 of 43
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire
body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the
person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite
of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities
and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 28 of 43
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity
is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.”
(vi) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar &
Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated
and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
“In the context of loss of future earning, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of work being performed by the
person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and
once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or
loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take
the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work
himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the
puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means of
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or
the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road
insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of
a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the
loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg
(or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound
to have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or
social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working
in the office would not interfere with his work/earning
capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal
farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(vii) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is
understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual
dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to
a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically
determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional
disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been heldMACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 29 of 43
in various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and Hon’ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would
result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however,
might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each
other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(viii) The claimant has placed on record a disability certificate
issued by Pt. Madan Mohan Malviya Hospital, which reflects that
he has suffered 72% permanent physical disability in relation to
the right lower limb. However, it is well settled that for the
purpose of assessment of compensation, what is required to be
considered is the functional disability, i.e., the impact of such
disability on the earning capacity of the injured, and not merely
the percentage of physical disability. In the present case, the
claimant was working as a medicine supplier, which necessarily
required continuous mobility, driving of a two-wheeler and
substantial physical movement. The nature of injuries sustained
by him, namely extensive degloving crush injury of the right
lower limb, prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgical
interventions including debridement and skin grafting, along with
requirement of blood transfusion, clearly establish that the
claimant has suffered serious impairment affecting his mobility.
It has also come on record that he is unable to stand properly and
his work, being dependent upon movement, has been
significantly impacted. The claimant has placed reliance upon
Syed Sadiq vs Divisional Manager United India Insurance Co.
Ltd to contend that in cases where the occupation of the injured
is dependent upon physical activity, the functional disability
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 30 of 43
ought to be assessed on a higher side, even to the extent of
treating it as 100%, as the real test is the loss of earning capacity
and not the medical percentage of disability. The submission is
that considering the nature of his work and the extent of
impairment, the claimant is no longer in a position to carry out
his previous avocation. While the said submission has force to
the extent that functional disability must be assessed keeping in
view the nature of work, it cannot be accepted in entirety so as to
treat the functional disability as 100% in the facts of the present
case. It is to be noted that the claimant was about 39 years of age
at the time of accident and is stated to be 5th class pass. His
income has not been proved by cogent documentary evidence
and has, therefore, been assessed on the basis of skilled wages,
considering that his work involved driving skills. Although his
ability to perform work requiring continuous mobility stands
considerably curtailed, it cannot be said that he is rendered
completely incapable of all forms of gainful employment. The
possibility of engaging in some limited, less strenuous or semi-
skilled/unskilled work cannot be ruled out. At the same time, it is
equally true that given his limited educational background, age,
and nature of previous occupation, the scope for shifting to
sedentary or desk-based employment is minimal. The injury has
effectively restricted him from performing the very nature of
work he was accustomed to and is now constrained to undertake
only limited or unskilled work in future, thereby substantially
reducing his earning capacity.
(ix) Accordingly, considering the overall facts and
circumstances, the nature of injuries, avocation of the claimant,
his age, educational background, the functional disability of the
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 31 of 43
claimant is assessed at 50% with respect to the whole body. This
assessment strikes a balance between the medical disability and
its actual impact on the earning capacity of the claimant and is
found to be just, fair and reasonable in the facts of the case.
(x) Future Prospect: It is settled that future prospect (as laid
down in the well considered judgment of National Insurance
Company Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable,
not only in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability.
(Support drawn from Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar & Ors.,
AIR 2020 SC 4424).
(xi) Date of birth as per Aadhar Card noted as 15.05.1983 as
such, injured was about 39 years of age on the date of accident.
Since the injured was below 40 years of age and was self-
employed / on a fixed income, in view of the law laid down in
Pranay Sethi (supra), the addition towards future prospects is
taken at 40%. Further, as per the age of the injured at the time of
accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable would be 15.
(xii) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income =Rs.2,44,284/- (b) Future prospects (40% of Rs.2,21,988/-) =Rs.97,714/- (c) Total = Rs.3,41,998/- (d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.3,41,998/- (e) Hence, the 'Total Loss of Future Income' shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand × Multiplier)
50% (Rs.3,41,998/- × 15) = Rs.25,64,985/-
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 32 of 43
24. NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
(a) Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are
designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be
ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages
are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and
physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life,
inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and
unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in
the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life
which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature
of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of
Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well,
primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured
and the effect of those upon his future life.
(b) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446)
{also been referred to and relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sidram (supra)}
“Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and
suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is
taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being
interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there
has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a
provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and
indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury will
currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff, including
his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the
actual amount of the award.
(c) In case of Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union
of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
held that the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 33 of 43
compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The
Court further held that the elements of damage recognized by law
are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary
loss. While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically
worked out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-
pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of money, not as a
substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute,
what McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it
is the best that a court can do.
(d) Further, in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003)
2 SCC 274, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that if a
collection of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it
must necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable
cases can be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike
but still, it is possible to make a broad classification which
enables one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation
should be taken into account while calculating damages.
(The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin
Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. MAC App. 602/2015
decided on 17 August, 2017 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court).
(e) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads
involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the
loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to a
normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries
sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for
compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far
as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily
involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations,
however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 34 of 43
of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective
sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of
disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are
various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss
(general damages) is assessed:
(f) Damages for pain & suffering as well as mental and physical
trauma: The injured sustained grievous injuries in the accident,
including extensive degloving crush injury of the right lower
limb, which required prolonged hospitalization and multiple
surgical interventions such as debridement and skin grafting,
along with blood transfusion. The nature of injuries indicates
severe trauma to the limb, resulting in long-term impairment of
mobility. The period of treatment, repeated medical procedures,
pain endured, and the substantial impact on day-to-day activities
clearly establish that the injured must have undergone
considerable physical pain, trauma and mental distress. Taking
into account the overall facts and circumstances, including the
seriousness of injuries, prolonged treatment and the nature of
surgical procedures undergone, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- is
awarded towards pain and suffering. Further, considering the
mental and physical shock suffered due to the sudden accident,
the invasive nature of treatment and its continuing effect on the
quality of life of the injured, an additional sum of Rs.2,50,000/-
is awarded towards mental and physical shock. Accordingly, a
total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under the non-pecuniary
heads.
(g) Loss of amenities of life: It compensates the victim on
account of his inability to enjoy the basic amenities of life as any
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 35 of 43
other normal person can, taking into account the age and the
deprivation he would have to undergo and suffer due to injuries.
Considering the nature of injuries suffered by claimant, an
amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities.
25. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : As Rs. 25,952/-
discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs. 30,000/-
discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.50,000/-
discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of earning during the period of Rs.1,22,142/-
treatment:
(vi) Loss of Future Income Rs.25,64,985/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rs.2,50,000/- + Rs.2,50,000/-)
trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
3 Total Compensation Rs.34,43,079/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.34,43,079/-
Interest As directed
below
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 36 of 43
26.Interest
(a). In Ram Charan & Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. (MAC Appeal No. 433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022), while
relying upon the principles laid down in Abati Bezbaruah vs.
Geological Survey of India, it has been observed that the grant of
interest under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a matter
of judicial discretion and no uniform rate can be fixed, as the
same must be just and reasonable depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case, including factors such as inflation,
economic conditions, period of pendency, nature of injuries and
extent of suffering. It was further held that interest is awarded as
compensation for the deprivation of money which ought to have
been paid. Having regard to the aforesaid principles and the
prevailing economic conditions, as well as the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya vs. State Express
Transport Corporation decided on 27 July, 2020, Civil Appeal
Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.8495-
8496 of 2018], this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award
interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount in the
present case.
27. LIABILITY
(a) The primary defence raised by the insurance company is
that the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit
on the date of accident. It is stated that the accident occurred on
23.02.2023 and at that time there was no valid authorisation of
permit and fitness certificate in respect of the offending vehicle.
In order to substantiate this defence, the insurance company
examined its Assistant Manager, Sh. Digvijay Singh, as R3W1,
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 37 of 43
who deposed in support of the plea that the vehicle was being
used without a valid permit. He further stated that a notice under
Order XII Rule 8 CPC dated 04.02.2025 was sent through speed
post to the insured, calling upon him to produce the permit,
authorisation and fitness certificate covering the date of accident.
The said notice has been placed on record as Ex. R3W1/3 and the
corresponding postal receipts are Ex.R3W1/4. A verification
report has also been filed as Ex. R3W1/5 along with the
particulars of the permit. The insurance company has also placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
Gurmeet Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd MAC
APP no. 288/2021 in support of its contention and has ultimately
prayed for complete exoneration from liability.
Upon appreciation of the material on record, it is evident
that the permit particulars filed as Ex. R3W1/5 do not clearly
establish the status of the permit as on the date of accident.
However, during the course of proceedings, learned counsel for
R-1 and R-2 made a statement that the authorisation of permit
and fitness were not valid as on the date of accident. Further, no
reply was filed on behalf of R-1 and R-2 to the notice issued
under Order XII Rule 8 CPC. The driver of the offending vehicle,
during his cross-examination, also stated that he was not aware
whether the permit of the vehicle was valid on the date of
accident. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a goods carriage
(HGV) registered with the Punjab Transport Department, while
the accident took place in Delhi. In such circumstances, the
vehicle was required to possess a valid and effective permit
authorising its use in Delhi in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. No document has been placed on record by R-1 or R-2 to
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 38 of 43
show that the vehicle was being plied with a valid permit or
fitness certificate on the date of accident. Accordingly, it stands
established that the offending vehicle was being used in
contravention of statutory provisions and policy conditions.
However, the contention of the insurance company seeking
complete exoneration is not sustainable. The very judgment
relied upon by the insurance company, namely Gurmeet Singh
vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd, does not lay down that
the insurer can be completely absolved of liability in such
circumstances. Rather, the Hon’ble High Court has held that
absence of a valid permit constitutes a breach of policy condition,
entitling the insurer to recovery rights against the insured, while
still mandating that the insurer must first satisfy the award in
favour of the third-party claimant. Thus, the reliance placed by
the insurance company on the aforesaid judgment, in fact,
supports the grant of recovery rights instead of exoneration.
In view of the above discussion, although it is proved that
the offending vehicle was being plied without a valid permit and
fitness certificate on the date of accident, the insurance company
cannot be exonerated from its statutory liability towards third
parties. At the same time, the said breach of policy condition
entitles the insurance company to recover the awarded amount
from the owner and insured after satisfying the award.
Accordingly, the insurance company is directed to pay the
compensation to the claimant in the first instance with simple
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till
actual realizationwith with liberty to recover the same from R-1
and R-2 in accordance with law. (If there is any order regarding
excluding of interest for specific period same be complied at the
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 39 of 43
time of calculation of award amount. Further, in case the matter
adjourned sine die, interest for the period i.e. the date of
concerned order till revival of the case, shall not be awarded.
Further, if any auction proceeds is received, same be adjusted in
the final award amount).
28. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to
furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case
number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station,
name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other
relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the
account titled “MACT FUND PARKING”, Account No.
00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code
110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
29. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Out of total award amount Rs. 30,00,000/- along with
proportionate interest is directed to be kept in form of monthly
FDR of Rs.25,000/- each. Remaining amount shall be released in
his bank account as per details.
30. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon’ble
High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated
14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank
account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving
all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to
receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 40 of 43
cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven
days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They
are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not
already filed.
31. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court
Complex
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further
directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the
claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper
verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the
bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for
release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount,
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
32. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon’ble High Court, vide
reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall
invest the amount to be deposited in fixed deposit with any
nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall be with the standing
instructions to the bank to renew the same after periodical
intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in
the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e.
the savings bank account of the claimant shall be individual
savings bank account and not a joint account.
(c) 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.
(d) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near
the place of their residence.
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 41 of 43
(e) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of
the claimant near the place of their residence.
(f) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(g) 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 freeze the account of the claimant so that no debit
card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from any
other branch of the bank.
(h) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant 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 shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed
for compliance.
33. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE
AWARD.
1 Date of accident 23.02.2023
2 Name of injured Uttam Singh Negi
3 Age of the injured 39 years
4 Occupation of the Driving
injured
5 Income of the injured As per record
MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 42 of 43
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and
disability
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury and
disability? disability
34. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld.
Concerned Criminal Court. Digitally signed
ADITI by ADITI GARG
Date:
2026.04.30
Announced in the open court GARG 16:24:12
+0530
on 30.04.2026
(Aditi Garg)
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
30.04.2026MACT No.: 345/2024 Uttam Singh Negi Vs. Sunil & Ors. Page No. 43 of 43
