Delhi District Court
Vidya Sagar(D)I(642/23/Ap) vs Sandeep Kr(Tata Aig) on 21 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010003972024
MACT No. : 34/2024
FIR No. : 642/2023
PS : Anand Parbat
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Sh. Vidya Sagar Rekhi
S/o Sh. Amar Nath Rekhi
R/o E-2/99A, Block E-2,
Shastri Nagar, Ashok Vihar,
North West Delhi-110052.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sandeep Kumar (Driver)
S/o Sh. Subhash Kumar,
R/o D-248, Peeragarhi Camp,
Shakur Basti, North West Delhi.
2. Ms. Rupal (Owner)
D/o Sh. Surender Kumar Gupta
R/o RZB-161, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi,
West Delhi.
3. TATA AIG General Insurance company,
A-2, Ist Floor, Najafgarh Road,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 09.01.2024
Judgment reserved on: 21.04.2026
Date of Award: 21.05.2026
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:49:18 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 1 of 39
AWARD
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
09.01.2024 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The
DAR revealed that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 11.10.2023 at
about 08:00 pm, New Rohtak Road, Opposite Gali No. 4, Industrial
Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi wherein Mr. Vidya Sagar had sustained
grievous injury. The accident took place with the vehicle bearing
registration No.DL4SCY2516 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no.1, Sandeep Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Rupal and
insured by respondent no. 3 TATA AIG General Insurance company.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
11.10.2023, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No.66A,
the information of present accident was handed over to IO/ASI Rakesh
Kumar. He alongwith HC Pradeep went to the spot where they found
one motor cycle and one scooty bearing No. DL4SCY2516 and
DL6SAP7696 respectively in accidental condition and they also came to
know that injured had already been taken to the RML Hospital by the
PCR Van. Further, after leaving HC Pradeep at the spot, IO went to the
hospital. Thereafter, IO collected the said MLC bearing No.E/208193/23
namely Vidya Sagar from the hospital. Thereafter, IO recorded the
statement of injured Vidya Sagar. Then, IO came back to the spot and
took both the accidental vehicles into his custody. Further, IO registered
FIR on basis of statement of injured Vidya Sagar and MLC under
Section 279/337 IPC.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:49:22 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 2 of 39
3. During the course of investigation, IO prepared the site
plan. Further, IO got done the mechanical inspection of both the
accidental vehicles. Thereafter, IO deposited the MLC into the hospital
for final opinion. Further, IO took the ownership of the offending
vehicle and served the notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the owner of the
offending vehicle i.e. the motorcyle, who stated that at the time of the
accident his friend Sandeep was driving the said vehicle. Thereafter,
owner produced documents of the offending vehicle and driver before
the IO. After interrogation, driver of the offending vehicle accepted that
the alleged accident was caused by him. Thereafter, he was arrested and
after producing his surety, the respondent no. 1 was released on police
bail.
4. During the course of investigation, IO got verified the
documents of the offending vehicle from the concerned authority, which
were found to be correct. Further, on the MLC of the injured, it was
opined that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries. Upon this, IO
changed Section 337 IPC to 338 IPC in the chargesheet. Further, driver
did not produce his driving licence. Upon this, IO added Section 3/181
MV ACT in the chargesheet and he also prepared separate Kalandra
against the owner u/s 5/180 MV ACT. After completion of investigation,
chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC & 3/181 MV Act was filed
against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Sandeep Kumar before
the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:49:27 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 3 of 39
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. No WS was filed by the respondent no.1 and 2. Hence, their
defence was struck off vide order dated 28.05.2024. They also stopped
appearing in the court. Hence, vide order dated 28.10.2025, they were
proceeded against exparte.
6. WS on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed, wherein it was
admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent
no.3 vide policy no. 3189406964 for the period 14.03.2019 to
13.03.2024. It was stated that the petitioner was under the liability to
prove the accident and the rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.1. Further, it was stated that the respondent no. 3 was entitled to take
all such defences as were available to the respondent no.3 as per law.
The respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without a valid
driving license. The IO also added Section 3/181 MV Act against the
respondent no.1. Hence, it is submitted that the conditions of the
insurance policy have been violated and the respondent no. 3 has no
liability to indemnify the respondents no. 1 and 2.
ISSUES
7. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
28.05.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 11.10.2023 at about 08:00 pm at Gali
no. 4, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi involving
vehicle bearing registration No. DL-4SCY-2516 driven
rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1 Sh. Sandeep
Kumar, Owned by respondent no. 2 Sh. Rupal and
insured with respondent no. 3 TATA AIG General Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:49:33 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 4 of 39
Insurance Co. Ltd.? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
8. The petitioner/injured examined himself as PW-1. He
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW-1/A and the
same bears his signatures at points-A & Î’. He relied upon the following
documents:
1. Copy of Aadhar Card of the injured was Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR).
2. Copy of Discharge Summary which was Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly 2 pages)
3. Copies of Medical record which were Ex.PW-1/3(Colly 6 pages)
4. Copy of Medical Bills which were Ex. PW-1/4.(colly 18 pages)
5. ITR of the injured was Ex. PW-1/5. (colly 10 pages)
6. Driving Licence of injured was Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. The IO has filed DAR report same may be considered accordingly,
Ex. PW-1/7 (colly).
9. Thereafter, Sh. Vastav, Tax Assistant was examined as
PW-2. He was the summoned witness. He was duly authorized by
Income Tax Officer, Ward 35 (1), New Delhi to depose before this
Tribunal. His authority letter was Ex. PW-2/1. He had also brought the
certificate under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
issued by Sh. Vikash Kumar, Income Tax Officer. The same was Ex.
PW-2/2. He also brought the certified true copies of the ITRs from AY
2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 of Sh. Vidya Sagar Rekhi. The same
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 5 of 39
15:49:40 +0530
were Ex. PW-2/3. (colly).
10. Both the witnesses were duly cross examined by the Ld.
Counsel for the respondents. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order
dated 23.02.2026.
RESPONDENTS EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, Sh. Rohit Bhardwaj, Legal Associate, TATA
AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. was examined as R3W1 by respondent
no.3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which was Ex.
R3W1/A and the same bears his signatures at Point A and B. He relied
upon the following documents:-
1) His authority Letter was Ex. R3W1/1.
2) Attested copy of insurance policy was Ex. R3W1/2 (colly)
12. Thereafter, he was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner Further, RE on behalf of respondent no. 3 was closed
vide order dt. 21.04.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and
financial statement of the injured was recorded. Final arguments were
heard on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3. Written
arguments were also filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
14. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:49:46 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 6 of 39
record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the injured suffered injuries in an accident
that took place on 11.10.2023 at about 08:00 pm at Gali no. 4,
Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi involving vehicle bearing
registration No. DL-4SCY-2516 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1 Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Owned by respondent no. 2 Sh.
Rupal and insured with respondent no. 3 TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd.?
15. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 11.10.2023 at about 08:00 pm, the
petitioner was going on his scooty. When he reached at Gali no. 4,
Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi, the driver of the offending vehicle
i.e. the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending vehicle carelessly
in a negligent manner came hit the petitioner, due to which he fell and
suffered injuries. It is stated that during investigation, the offending
vehicle was seized by the IO. The respondent no.1 was chargesheeted by
the IO. Hence, it is submitted that it is proved that the respondent no.1
was driving the negligent in a rash and negligent manner due to which
the petitioner suffered injuries.
16. Record perused.
17. In the present matter, no WS was filed by the respondent
no. 1, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:49:51 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 7 of 39
He was chargesheeted by the IO. It is pertinent to mention here that in
the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established
on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules
of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as
required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is
much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi &
Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC
530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that negligence
must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
18. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondent no.1
was chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies of
the criminal record or the criminal record showing the
completion of investigation by police or issuance of charge
sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the certified copy of
FIR or the recovery of the mechanical inspection report of
the offending vehicle, then these documents are sufficient
proof to reach to a conclusion that the driver was negligent
particularly when there is no defence available from the
side of driver.”
19. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Meera Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that “……in view
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. 15:50:04 +0530
Page 8 of 39
of Delhi Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR
has to be presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal
proof of the same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
20. Even otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent
no.1 prior to the accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with
respondent no.1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why he
will implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the
offending vehicle.
21. It is a settled law that the petitioner cannot be expected to
prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the principle of res
ipsa loquitor should apply which means that the “accident speaks for
itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR and chargesheet that
the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on the respondents to
prove that they were not responsible for the accident which the
respondents have failed to discharge. Hence, an adverse inference is
drawn against the respondent no.1. In this regard, reliance is placed on
the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of Teja
Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL.
52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP.
428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi &
Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM
APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied
upon the judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:50:09 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 9 of 39
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of
the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of chargesheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his
complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of
no effect on the assessment of the liability required in
respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta
and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is
of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in
issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in
Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence
and circumstances on record and in particular the finding
recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of
Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High
Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of
record and manifestly wrong.”
23. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:50:14 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 10 of 39
Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances,
the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed
thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash
and negligent driving of the respondent no.1. From the DAR, it also
stands established that the respondent no.2 was the registered owner of
the offending vehicle.
The injury:
24. The onus to prove the fact that the petitioner had suffered
injuries by way of the accident was upon the petitioner. In this regard,
the petitioner has relied upon his MLC which is part of the DAR.
Perusal of the same shows that the petitioner was taken to Dr. RML
Hospital on 11.10.2023 at about 09:05 pm with history of road traffic
accident. He sustained injuries on his leg. His injury was opined as
grievous.
25. His Discharge Summary dated 21.10.2023 is on record
issued by Max Hospital, which is Ex. PW1/2. Its supporting medical
record is Ex. PW1/3. As per this, the petitioner was operated upon and
plating was done. He was admitted on 19.10.2023 and discharged on
21.10.2023. He has also relied upon his Disability Certificate dated
17.09.2025 to prove that he has suffered 15% permanent disability in his
left lower limb.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:50:19 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 11 of 39
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If
yes, to what extend and from whom? (OPP)
27. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to compensation in
injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’ for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which
means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully
and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to
the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make
good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as
money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation
or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the
nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A
person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury,
but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such
injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:50:23 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 12 of 39
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries,
and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could
have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan
Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control
(India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby –
1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food,
and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation
will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv).”
28. 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
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. 15:50:28 +0530
Page 13 of 39
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:
29. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards
medical expenses. The petitioner has proved the treatment bills as Ex.
PW1/4 (colly), which are to the tune of Rs. 2,77,449/-. However, perusal
of the said bills show that the petitioner had got mediclaim. Hence, it
was argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 that the petitioner is not
entitled to this amount as the same shall result in unjust enrichment.
30. In a recent case titled as The New India Assurance
Company Limited vs. Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr SLP no. 18267/2025
decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.05.2026, the same issue
was decided. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
“15. In fine, we hold that the amount received as part of
Mediclaim/medical insurance is not deductible from
compensation as calculated by the concerned Tribunal,
adjudicating a claim for compensation under the MVA
which may also include compensation under the head of
medical expenses, if claimed. These two stand on a different
footing – one is statutory while the other is contractual and
the latter is only a sequitur of premiums having been paid
in the past while the other is an entitlement as a
consequence of an accident or death in a motor vehicle
accident.”
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:50:33 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 14 of 39
31. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the entire amount spent
on his treatment. A sum of Rs. 2,77,449/- is granted to the petitioner
under this head.
Loss of income:
32. In this regard, the petitioner has alleged that at the time of
accident, he was doing his business of auto parts. In his financial
statement, the petitioner has alleged that he was earning a sum of Rs.
1,50,000/- per month, while in the Form 14, he has stated that he was
earning Rs. 50,000/- per month as per his ITR. The petitioner summoned
the concerned witness from the Income Tax Department. Sh. Vastav, Tax
Assistant was examined as PW-2. He proved the certified true copies of
the ITRs from AY 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25 of the petitioner as
Ex. PW-2/3. (colly)
33. Perusal of these ITRs shows that the petitioner has declared
only income from house property. His income from salary/business is
declared as Nil. The petitioner has not led any evidence qua his alleged
business. Hence, he has failed to prove that he is running any business.
As per his own ITRs, his only source of income is from his properties.
In the K. Ramya & Ors. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal
No. 7046 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed that:
“20. At this juncture, we must note the decision in Shashikala v
Gangalakshmamma12 whereby this court deducted the entire
amount earned as income from house property while
determining the compensation under the Act. The decision in
Shashikala13 was a split decision because of disagreement
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.05.22
15:50:39
+0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 15 of 39
between the bench on whether future prospects are to be
considered for awarding compensation when the deceased is a
selfemployed person. Accordingly, the matter was tagged and
heard along with Pranay Sethi14, wherein this court had
conclusively decided the abovementioned issue regarding
future prospects. After that, the matter was remitted back to a
threejudge bench for redetermination of compensation, wherein
this court again deducted the entire amount earned as income
from house property.
21. Now, the sole issue which remains before this court is
whether the entire amount under ‘Income from House Property
and Agricultural Land’ should be deducted or not. In this
respect, we are guided by the observations of this court in State
of Haryana v Jasbir Kaur16 wherein it was noted that –
“The land possessed by the deceased still remains with
his legal heirs. There is however a possibility that the
claimants may be required to engage persons to look
after agriculture. Therefore, the normal rule about the
deprivation of income is not strictly applicable to cases
where agricultural income is the source. Attendant
circumstances have to be considered.” (Emphasis
Applied)In our opinion, the abovementioned observations, though made
in the context of agricultural land, would also be applicable to
rent received from leased out properties as the loss of
dependency arises mainly out of loss of management capacity
or efficiency. As a rule of prudence, computation of any
individual’s managerial skills should lie between 10 to 15 per
cent of the total rental income but the acceptable range can be
increased in light of specific circumstances. The appropriate
approach, therefore, is to determine the value of managerial
skills along with any other factual considerations.”
34. The above mentioned observations were given in a death
case. However, applying the same as a guiding principle, the petitioner’s
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:50:45 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 16 of 39
loss of income can be assessed only regards the loss of managerial
skills. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has suffered a 15%
permanent disability in his left lower limb. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
assessed the loss of managerial skills in a death case @ 10 to 15%.
Hence, in the present case, the same is assessed @ 5%.
35. As per the last ITR of the petitioner, his total income was
Rs. 4,76,000/-. No tax was payable on the same. Hence, his monthly
income comes to Rs. 39,666.66 (rounded off to Rs.39,667/-). Hence,
Rs.39,667/- is ascertained to be the monthly income of the injured.
36. It is stated that due to the said injuries, the petitioner was
unable to work for 12 months. However, as discussed, the petitioner’s
only source of income is rent. The same would not have been affected
by his accident. However, the loss of managerial skills can be
considered @ 5%. As per the treatment record of the petitioner, he
underwent a surgery soon after the accident. There is no further
treatment record proved. Hence, considering the facts and
circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner may not have been able
to work for three months at least. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be
entitled to loss of income for three months i.e. Rs. 39,667/- x 3 x 5% =
Rs.5,950/-.
Special diet:
37. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards
special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but keeping in
view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and considering the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:50:50 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 17 of 39
time of his treatment, 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:
38. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards
conveyance charges. No bills are proved. 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:
39. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 60,000/- towards
attendant charges. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but
keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner and
considering the time of his treatment, it seems that he must have
incurred expenditure towards attendant charges, therefore, a sum of Rs.
50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of attendant
charges .
Pain & Suffering:
40. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 50,000/- 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.05.22
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. 15:50:57
+0530 Page 18 of 39
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:
41. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 50,000/- for loss due to
mental shock. Keeping in view her 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:
42. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
under this head. Keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he
would definitely have loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs. 30,000/-
is awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss of amenities”.
Disfiguration
43. The petitioner/injured has claimed compensation under this
head. There is nothing on record that due to the said injuries, he has
suffered disfiguration. Hence, no amount is awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
44. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.05.22
15:51:04MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. +0530
Page 19 of 39
under this head. Keeping in view his injuries, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
45. Nil
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
46. The petitioner has suffered a 15% permanent disability in
his left lower limb. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that due to
the said accident, he is unable to work with the same vigour as before.
The petitioner has claimed loss of future earnings @ 15%. As discussed
above, as the petitioner is only earning rent from his property, he shall
be entitled to loss of managerial skills @ 5%.
47. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
petitioner to be Rs. 39,667/- at the relevant time. In view of the above
discussion, his functional disability (loss of managerial skills) is
ascertained to be 5%.
48. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is
concerned, as per the petitioner’s aadhar Card Ex. PW1/1 and driving
license Ex. PW1/6, his date of birth is 21.10.1962. The date of accident
is 11.10.2023. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was
60 years 11 months and 20 days. Therefore, by adopting the principles
laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the petitioner shall not be entitled to
future prospects as he was more than 60 years of age at the time of Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:51:10 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 20 of 39
accident.
49. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court, multiplier of ‘9’ is held applicable for calculating the loss of
future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
50. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of
the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 39,667/-. In view of the above, the
loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 39,667/-
Annual Income Rs. 39,667/- x 12 =
Rs. 4,76,000/-
Add Future Prospects Nil
Total income Rs. 4,76,000/-
Disability @ 5% Rs. 4,76,000/- x 5%= Rs. 23,800/-
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 23,800/- x 9 = Rs. 2,14,200/-
(9)
Loss of amenities or loss expectation of life span on account of
disability:
51. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under
this head. Keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would
definitely have loss of amenities. Hence, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under this head.
52. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA SINGLA
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:51:14 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 21 of 39
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 2,77,449/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 39,667/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 39,667/- x 3 x 5% = Rs.5,950/- Add future prospects Nil
Loss of future income (income X % Rs. 2,14,200/-
Earning Capacity X Multiplier) Any other loss/expenditure Nil Expense on special diet Rs. 25,000/- Conveyance charges Rs.25,000/- Attendant charges Rs.50,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs.50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- = Rs.
Suffering 1,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs.25,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.
Loss of amenities or loss Rs.30,000/-
expectation of life span on account
of disability
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. 15:51:19
+0530 Page 22 of 39
Total Rs. 7,82,599/-
53. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru
@ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @
9% per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 09.01.2024 till
realization.
DISBURSEMENT
54. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of her family are approximately Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month.
55. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018
& 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi &
Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors. has given the following directions:
“(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added
in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the
claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall
be an individual saving bank account and not a joint
account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank
in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity
amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:51:24 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 23 of 39
place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the
permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the
debit card and/or cheque book have already been issued,
bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the
award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the
account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in
respect of the account of claimants from any other
branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque
books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not
be issued without the permission of the Court and the
claimant shall produced the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court for
compliance.”
56. 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 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:51:29 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 24 of 39
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars
to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at
the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may
direct that the amount of compensation be transferred
in the account of the claimant and if there are more
than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no
bank account, then they should be required to open the
bank account either individually or jointly with family
members only. It should also be mandated that, in case
there is any change in the bank account particulars of the
claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition
they should update the same before the Tribunal. This
should be ensured before passing of the final award. It
may be ensured that the bank account should be in the
name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through
guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account
with any person, who is not a family member. The
transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of
which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as
mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction
of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
57. In view of the same, the award amount can now be
disbursed in the Savings Bank Account of the petitioners. However, the
remaining directions as passed by the Hon’ble High Court shall be
complied with. It is directed that the award amount be deposited by the
respondent no. 3 in the bank account of Tribunal bearing A/c. no.
42704293960, SBI, THC, Delhi in the name of MACT-01, Central,
IFSC Code: SBIN0000726.
58. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:51:35 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 25 of 39
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 9,49,132/-
(Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand One Hundred Thirty
Two only), Rs. 2,49,132/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand
One Hundred Thirty Two only) be released to the
petitioner/claimant immediately in his bank account no.
1398000100096315 Punjab National Bank, Shastri Nagar, Delhi,
IFSC PUNB0139800 CIF ID 107451826.
59. The balance amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven
Lakhs only) shall be put in 14 monthly fixed deposits in his name in
his bank account of equal amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 14 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.
60. Further, it is directed that as the amount is being
disbursed to the petitioner in his savings bank accounts, he shall not
avail any loan/advance facility on the FDRs without the permission of
this Tribunal. Further, he shall not encash the FDRs before their
maturity without the permission of this Tribunal.
61. 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:
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:51:41 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 26 of 39
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 11.10.2023
Name of the Injured: Vidya Sagar
Age of the Injured: Presently 64 years
Occupation of the Injured: Self employed
Income of the Injured: Rs. 39,667/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: RML Hospital, Delhi and Max
Hospital, Delhi
Period of Hospitalization: 19.10.2023 to 21.10.2023
Whether any permanent: Yes
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 2,77,449/-
(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. 39,667/-
(vi) Loss of income x 3 months x 5% Rs.5,950/-
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:51:47 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 27 of 39
viii) Any other loss which may require Nil
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- = Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Nil
Disfiguration
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs.25,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 15%
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Rs.30,000/-
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 5%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 2,14,200/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 7,82,599/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Interest awarded 9%
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:51:51 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 28 of 39
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. 1,66,532.78 (rounded off to Rs.
award w.e.f. 09.01.2024 till 1,66,533/-)
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 9,49,132/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 58 & 59
10. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para nos. 59
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 58 & 59
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 04.07.2026
award
LIABILITY:
62. 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 respondent no. 3. It is
argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 that by virtue of the
amendment in Section 150 MV Act, as the respondent no. 1 was not
carrying a valid driving license at the time of the accident, the
respondent no. 3 insurance company is entitled to take the defence
under Section 150 (2)(a)(ii) MV Act. It is submitted that prior to the
Amendment of April, 2022, where any of the defences was available to
the company as stipulated under the Act, the insurance company had the
liability to pay the compensation amount and was entitled to recover the
same from the driver/owner. Now, the provision of pay and recover has
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:51:56 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 29 of 39
been deleted by the introduction of the Amendment Act, meaning
thereby that the defences, as provided in the Act, if proved on record by
the insurance company, then the insurance company shall not be liable
to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
63. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that the
respondent no. 1 was not carrying a valid driving license at the time of
the accident. This fact was verified by the IO and the respondent no.1
was also chargesheeted under Section 3/181 MV Act. No defence was
led by the respondent no.1 to prove the contrary. Hence, the insurance
company is not liable to pay any compensation in the present case.
64. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner
that the present case is filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, which is a
beneficial legislation.
65. Record perused.
66. As submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3, this fact
was verified by the IO and the respondent no.1 was also chargesheeted
under Section 3/181 MV Act. No defence was led by the respondent
no.1 to prove the contrary. It is a matter of record that by virtue of the
Amendment Act of 2022, the principle of pay and recover has been
removed by the Parliament. Our own Hon’ble High Court has taken a
similar view in Go Digit General Insurance Co. v. Mohd Javed MAC.
App 416/2025 decided on 09.07.2025, in a similar matter, wherein it has
observed that:
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.05.22
15:52:03 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 30 of 39
“So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that
appears to be an inadvertent error by the Ld. Trial Court
since, after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act
w.e.f. 01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery
rights is no longer available in the statute book.”
67. However, the said observations were given by the Hon’ble
High Court in a passing reference and is not a ratio decidendi. However,
in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Arti Devi And
Others 2025:AHC:14110 decided by the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahbad on 31 January, 2025, in a similar set of circumstances, it was
observed that:
“21. When the language used in sub-Section (4) of Section
149 prior to amendment as replaced by sub-Section (4) of
Section 150 by the Amendment Act of 2019, is carefully
examined, the words “shall, as respects such liabilities as are
required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 147, be of no effect” would only mean
that under the circumstances covered by sub-Section (4),
either of Section 149 or Section 150, the insurer would be
well within its rights to avoid liability flowing from the
insurance policy. Meaning thereby that the insurer would be
absolved of bearing liability to pay compensation to the
claimants. It does not mean that the insurer would also be
absolved from its liability to indemnify the owner’s risk.
Such indemnification will still continue to remain alive and
the insurer shall have to first pay the compensation through
indemnification and, then, it shall have a right to recover
from the owner the amount paid as the ultimate liability
shall have to be borne by the owner and not by insurer. In
such an event, there would be no financial loss to the
insurer as it would be compensated through recovery from
the owner. The aforesaid provisions are expressly to give
defence to the insurer and have to be read to that extent
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:52:08 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 31 of 39
only and not to interpret as if the liability to indemnify
stands washed away. It therefore follows that even if the
proviso to sub-Section (4) would not have been there before
the amendment, the indemnification concept would have
still remained alive and operative and, hence, mere
omission of the proviso by the Amendment Act of 2019
would be of no avail.
22. Therefore, when Shri Parihar urges that if, in every case,
liability to pay compensation has to be borne by the
Insurance Company, there would be no effect of providing
grounds for defence either under sub-section (2) of the Act
prior to amendment or under sub-section (2) of the Act after
amendment, this Court finds no force in the submission. The
reason is that providing grounds of defence under the said
provisions would be read so as to give an opportunity to the
Insurance Company to avoid passing of award against it, i,e,
holding it liable to bear the award. The said liability to have
an award against the Insurance Company is distinct from the
situation where award is against the owner and insurer is
made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and then
recover the same from the owner. Non-receipt of premium as
required under Section 64(V)B of the Insurance Act, 1938 has
now been added in Section 150(2). It reflects that even in a
case where premium is not received by the Insurance
Company, it can raise a ground of challenge so as to avoid
passing of award against it and, in that event also, award
would be drawn against the owner. When payment or non-
payment of premium is significant after amendment and has
been made a ground of defence, the Court observes that a
third party risk is covered under the policy which is a
contract and premium qua third party risk is received by the
insurer in relation to the contract. Therefore, policy continues
to subsist to cover third party risk so long the premium is
received and non-payment thereof would absolve the
Insurance Company from its liability of an award being
passed against it. Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:52:13 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 32 of 39
31. A bare perusal of clause 2 read with clause 5 (b) and
clause 51 reflects that the intention of the legislature was
never to withdraw protection and reliefs as regards
compensation ensured by the previous existing provisions.
Rather, the Bill strives more towards ensuring expeditious
help to the accident victims and their families. The emotional
and social trauma caused to the family which loses its bread
winner, is still one of the special considerations as set forth in
the Statement above, The Bill was brought with an object to
replace the existing provisions of insurance with simplified
provisions in order to provide expeditious help to accident
victims and their families. There is nothing in the Statement
of Objects and Reasons which may, either directly or
indirectly, infer withdrawal of insurer’s liability to pay
compensation as soon as the award is declared, even in case
of occurrence of breach of policy or other existence of similar
grounds of defence available to the insurer. Therefore, the
purpose behind bringing amendments in the Act of 1988 was
clearly to provide immediate financial help to the accident
victims and their dependents and not to create a situation
where they are made to run from pillar to post even after an
award is declared in their favour.
37. From the over all discussion made above, it is crystal
clear that the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either
before the amendment or thereafter, particularly covered by
Chapter XI thereof, is to compensate victims of accidents in
case of an insurance policy being in existence. In view of the
interpretation made, holding that omission of the proviso
would exonerate the insurer of its liability to indemnify at the
first instance would be too wild a proposition and would
result in creating a situation where the insurer would be out
of scene despite an insurance policy being there and the
claimants would have to again fight for getting the amount of
compensation through execution proceedings in one way or
the other, searching the owner through the process of Court.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:52:17 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 33 of 39
In such an event, the claimants would face further
harassment and nobody knows that despite a money decree in
the nature of an award being there in their favour, as to
whether the claimants would ever be able to get the
compensation realized through recovery proceedings directly
from the owner. Accordingly, the legislative intent becomes
clear and there is nothing to support the insurer’s arguments
flowing from interpretation of Statute or Causus Omissus.
The contention advanced on behalf of insurer stands
discarded.
38. The Court, therefore, holds that mere omission of
proviso attached to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 after its replacement by Section 150 of
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019),
neither takes away the liability of the insurer to pay the
claimants nor its right to recover the said amount from the
owner. The law to this effect remains intact and unaffected
by Amendment Act, 2019 and, hence, insurer shall continue
to indemnify the owner’s risk in relation to accidents taking
place after 01.04.2022 and “PAY & RECOVER” principle
will still continue to govern the field advancing social object
of the Statute protecting third party interest. Principle of
law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1)
SC 109 has not lost its significance and binding effect
despite omission of proviso. Held accordingly. “
68. Hence, in view of the above mentioned observations, it is
directed that the respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner and then the respondent no.3 shall be
entitled to recover the said amount from the respondents no. 1 & 2.
Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:52:21 +0530MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 34 of 39
RELIEF:
69. The respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.
7,82,599/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Five
Hundred Ninety Nine only) along with interest @ 9% from the date
of filing of DAR i.e. 09.01.2024 till realization with the bank account
of this Tribunal at SBI, THC within 30 days under intimation to the
claimant, failing which the said respondent 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.
70. 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 Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:52:26 +0530
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 35 of 39
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
04.07.2026 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
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 21st May 2026. RUCHIKA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22
15:52:31 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 36 of 39
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 11.10.2023
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
13.10.2023
First Accident Report (FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
N/A
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
30.11.2023
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 30.11.2023
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance 30.11.2023
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-VIA
09.01.2024
from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of DAR
09.01.2024
9 Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If NO.
so, whether any action/direction warranted? 10 Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the 09.01.2024 Insurance Company 11 Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company admitted his report YES. within 30 days of the DAR? 12 Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of No Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22 15:52:38 +0530 MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 37 of 39 the Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/direction warranted? 13 Date of response of the N/A claimant(s) to the offer of the Insurance Company. 14 Date of award 21.05.2026 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 09.01.2024 the direction to the bank not to issue any cheque book/debit card to the claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this effect on the passbook(s). 17 Date on which the claimant(s) produced the passbook of their savings bank account(s) near the 21.04.2026 place of their residence alongwith the endorsement, PAN card and Aadhar Card? 18 Permanent residential address of the claimant(s). As per Award. 19 Whether the claimant(s) Yes savings bank account(s) is Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22 15:52:43 +0530 MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 38 of 39 near their place of residence? 20 Whether the Claimant(s) were examined at the time of Yes. The Financial Statement of the passing of the Award to claimant was recorded 21.04.2026. ascertain his/their financial condition? Digitally signed RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.05.22 15:52:49 +0530 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI. 21.05.2026 MACT no. 34/2024 Vidya Sagar Vs. Sandeep Kumar& Ors. Page 39 of 39
