Delhi District Court
Vikram Saini(D)I(728/21/B) vs Rohit Kr on 9 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010182902021
MACT No. : 16/22
FIR No. : 728/2021
PS : Burari
u/s : 279/338 IPC
Sh. Vikram Saini,
S/o Sh. Hari Kishan Saini
R/o H. No. 5252/115-4,
B Block, Baba Colony,
Burari, Delhi.
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Rohit Kumar (DRIVER)
S/o Sh. Arvind Singh,
R/o Gali No. 13, House of Kamlesh,
A Block, Baba Colony, Burari Delhi.
2. Sh. Chhatri Singh,(Owner)
S/o Sh. Ramdav Singh,
R/o H. No. 263, Gali No. 12,
Shiv Kunj, Jharoda, Burari, Delhi.
.....Respondents
Date of filing of DAR: 23.12.2021
Judgment reserved on: 09.04.2026
Date of Award: 09.04.2026
AWARD
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
23.12.2021 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim petition. The
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:00:10 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 33
DAR revealed that a Road Traffic Accident took place on 27.08.2021 at
05:45 pm at Pradhan Enclave, Shukra Bazar Road, Near Pusta, Burari,
Delhi wherein Mr. Vikram Saini had sustained grievous injury. The
accident took place with the vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1LL-3777 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1, Rohit
Kumar and owned by respondent no. 2 Chhatri Singh.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
27.08.2021, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 105A,
the information of present accident was handed over to IO/ASI
Rishikesh Yadav. He alongwith Ct. Bharat Lal went to the spot where
they came to know that injured went to the Trauma Center, Civil Lines.
Thereafter, IO went to the Trauma Center where he met Sh. Vikram
Saini who got admitted vide MLC No. 27070/21. Thereafter, IO
collected the said MLC from the hospital. Injured denied to give
statement to the IO. On 28.08.2021, IO again went to the hospital and
recorded the statement of the injured. Thereafter, IO registered FIR on
basis of statement of injured and MLCs under Section 279/338 IPC.
3. During the course of investigation, IO took the ownership
of the offending vehicle and served notice u/s 133 MV upon the owner
of the offending vehicle. Upon this owner replied that on 22.08.2021, he
had already sold the offending vehicle to Sh. Rohit but he was unable to
produce any proof to the IO for the same. Further, owner also produced
Sh. Rohit/driver of the offending vehicle, offending vehicle and original
RC to the IO which were taken by the IO into his custody. Thereafter, IO
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr.
16:00:18 +0530
Page 2 of 33
deposited the same into the malkhana. Further, IO got prepared the site
plan on the instructions of the mother of the injured. Thereafter, IO
interrogated the driver of the offending vehicle, who accepted that the
said accident was occurred by him only. Upon this he got arrested by the
IO and got released on police bail.
4. During the course of investigation, IO came to know that
Sh. Rohit/driver of the offending vehicle was driving the said vehicle
without driving licence and without insurance. Thereafter, IO added
Section 3/181 & 146/196 MV Act in the investigation. Further, IO
prepared separate Kalandra against the owner of the offending vehicle
under Section 5/180 & 146/196 MV Act. Thereafter, IO got conducted
the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and verified the RC
of the offending vehicle which was found to be correct. Further, MLC of
the injured was deposited in the hospital for final opinion and the
injuries were opined to be “grievous”. After completion of investigation,
chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/338 IPC & 3/181/146/196 MV Act
was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, Mr. Rohit Kumar
before the concerned Ld. JMFC and the DAR was filed before this
Tribunal.
WRITTEN STATEMENTS
5. No WS was filed by the respondent no.1. Vide order dated
20.09.2022, his opportunity to file the WS was closed.
6. WS was filed by the respondent no.2 that he was the
registered owner of the offending vehicle. However, on 22.08.2021, he
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 33
16:00:25 +0530
had already sold the offending vehicle to Sh. Rohit Kumar i.e. the
respondent no.1, vide an agreement dated 28.08.2021. It was stated that
the respondent no.2 was not in the possession or control of the offending
vehicle nor was driving the same at the time of the accident. Hence, he
was not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
7. Thereafter, the respondents stopped appearing in the court.
Hence, they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated
16.10.2024.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
20.09.2022, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner/Sh. Vikram Saini suffered
injuries in an accident that took place on 27.08.2021 at
about 05:45 pm involving vehicle bearing registration No.
DL-1LL-3777 driven by the respondent no. 1 rashly and
negligently and owned by the respondent no. 2? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
9. 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 self attested aadhar card of the petitioner is Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:00:36 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 33
Ex. PW-1/1. (OSR).
2) Copy of self attested Voter ID Card of the petitioner is
Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR).
3) Copy of self attested PAN Card of the petitioner is Ex.
PW-1/3 (OSR).
4) Copy of self attested Conductor license card of the
petitioner is Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR).
5) Original copy of salary slip for the month of July 2021
is Ex. PW-1/5.
6)Original Copy of medical treat records and bill are Ex.
PW-1/6 (OSR) ( colly 10 to 40 pages).
7)Attested Copy of DAR as filed by the IO of the
criminal case is Ex. PW-1/7.
8) Photographs of the offending vehicle and injuries are
Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly).
9) Physical disability certificate of the petitioner is Ex.
PW-1/9 (Original is already placed on the court record).
10) Original salary slip for the month of January, 2026 is
Ex. PW-1/10.
10. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 21.02.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. 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.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:00:42 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 33
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
12. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record. My findings on the various issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner/Sh. Vikram Saini suffered
injuries in an accident that took place on 27.08.2021 at about 05:45
pm involving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1LL-3777 driven by
the respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently and owned by the
respondent no. 2?
13. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 27.08.2021 at about 05:45 pm, the
petitioner was setting up weekly market at Pradhan Enclave, Shukra
Bazar Road, Near Pusta, Burari, Delhi. Suddenly, the driver of the
offending vehicle i.e. the respondent no.1 who was driving the offending
vehicle carelessly in a negligent manner came from back side and 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.
14. Record perused.
15. 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:
2026.04.09
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 33
16:00:47 +0530
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.
16. 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.”
17. 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
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:00:57 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 33
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.”
18. 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.
19. 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.
Digitally signed
Vs Kamlesh 2009(3) AD Delhi 310. by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.04.09
16:01:02
+0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 33
20. 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.”
21. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:01:08 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 33
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:
22. 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 bearing no. 27070/21 which is
part of the DAR. Perusal of the same shows that the petitioner was taken
to Lok Nayak Hospital on 27.08.2021 at about 06:05 pm with history of
road traffic accident. He sustained injuries on his head and leg. He had a
fracture in his leg and his injury was opined as grievous. He has also
relied upon his Disability Certificate dated 01.05.2024 to prove that he
has suffered 26% permanent disability in his right lower limb.
23. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents. RUCHIKA by
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:01:13 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 33
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If
yes, to what extend and from whom? (OPP)
24. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to compensation in
injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’ for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which
means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully
and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to
the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make
good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as
money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The Court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation
or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the
nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A
person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury,
but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such
injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries,
and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could
have earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan
Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control
(India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby –
1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following : RUCHIKA
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:01:18 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 33
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).”
25. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the
accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
26. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 62,803/- towards
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:01:23 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 33
medical expenses. The petitioner has proved the treatment bills as Ex.
PW1/6 (colly), which are to the tune of Rs. 53,203/-. Hence, a sum of
Rs. 53,203/- is granted to hm under this head.
Loss of income:
27. In this regard, the petitioner has alleged that at the time of
accident, he is working as a conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation
(DTC) and earning Rs. 21,061/- pm. To prove the same, he has proved
on record his salary slip for the month of July 2021 as Ex. PW1/5, as per
which his gross income was Rs. 23,687/-. Hence, his annual gross
income would be Rs. 2,84,244/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held
that for calculating compensation, the income of the victim less the
income tax should be treated as the actual income.
28. The petitioner has not proved his ITR on record. As per the
income tax slab for the financial year 2021-22, no tax was payable till
the income of Rs. 2,50,000/-. From Rs.2,50,000/- till Rs. 5,00,000/-, tax
to the tune of 5% was payable. Hence, the income tax payable by the
petitioner for that year would have been Rs.1,712.20. Hence, his net
annual income comes to Rs. 2,82,531.80. His monthly income comes to
Rs. 23,544.31 (rounded off to Rs.23,545/-). Hence, Rs.23,545/- is
ascertained to be the monthly income of the injured.
29. It is stated that due to the said injuries, the petitioner was
unable to work for 15 months. However, the petitioner has not proved
any treatment papers except the MLC. No record was summoned from Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:01:28 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 33
his employer’s office to prove that he was unable to go to work for 15
months. 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. 23,545/- x 3 = Rs.70,635/-.
Special diet:
30. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 35,000/- 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
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:
31. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards
conveyance charges. He has placed on bills Ex. PW1/6 to the tune of
Rs.10,200/- on record. Other bills are not 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:
32. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 55,000/- 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 Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:01:34 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 33
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:
33. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 1,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he
actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an
effort has to be made to compensate him for the same in a just and
reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the
injuries suffered by petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him
etc., he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and
sufferings to the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
34. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 80,000/- 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:
35. The petitioner/injured 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. 50,000/- Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:01:39 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 33
is awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss of amenities”.
Disfiguration
36. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-
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.:
37. The petitioner/injured has claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/-
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
38. Nil
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
39. The petitioner has suffered a 26% permanent disability in
his right 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.
He is unable to take extra shifts of duty. The petitioner has claimed loss
of future earnings @ 13%.
40. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011)
1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 16:01:45
Date: 2026.04.09
+0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 33
result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the
head of loss of future earnings, would depend upon the
effect and impact of such permanent disability on his
earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the
percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In
most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is,
percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a
permanent disability will be different from the percentage of
permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in
all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent
disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning
capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show
45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating
the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of
either too low or too high a compensation. What requires to
be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanently
disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terns of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying
the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency).”
41. Hence, the Tribunal has to examine as to how the disability
suffered by the petitioner affects his ability to earn. As per the
allegations of the petitioner, he is working with DTC. As per record, he
is still working there. Hence, as he is a permanent employee of the DTC,
he shall not lose his job due to the said injury. Reliance placed on Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2011) 1 SCC 34.
42. However, the loss of income post-retirement has to be
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 16:01:51
Date: 2026.04.09
+0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 33
considered. In Raj Kumar Malik v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
2017 SCC OnLine Del 11076, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
observed that:
“But then, it has to be remembered that as a government
servant he would superannuate on attaining the age of 60
years. Loss of earning capacity post retirement had to be
considered by the award of compensation and for such
purposes, the tribunal could adopt the multiplier of 9. In such
calculation, however, it would also need to be kept in mind that
the claimant would have earned 50% of the last emoluments
drawn as pension and thus the consequent functional disability
will have to make up for the loss against the balance.
6. Having regard to the above facts, the notional income after
factoring in the element of future prospects of progressive rise in
income is taken as (12651 × 150 ÷100) Rs. 18976.5, rounded off
to Rs. 19,000/-. The pension to the extent of 50% would come to
(19000 ÷2) Rs. 9500/-. Having regard to the percentage of loss
of earning capacity as indicated against the third entry in
second part of the first schedule appended to Employees
Compensation Act, 1923, the functional disability is taken as
70%. Thus, the loss of earning capacity due to permanent
disability is computed as (9500 × 70 ÷ 100 × 12 × 9) Rs.
7,18,200/-.”
43. Same principle was applied by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Raj Kumar MAC.APP.
22/2022 & CM APPL. 4665/2022 decided on 19th July 2023 and in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hari Om Construction & Ors. MAC
APP No. 464/2011 decided on 03.11.17.
44. This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
petitioner to be Rs. 23,545/- at the relevant time. The petitioner has
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:01:58 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 33
claimed functional disability @ 13%, which is not unreasonable. His
disability may not affect his present job, but later after retirement, he
may face problems in finding a job. A disability in the lower leg shall
affect his walking and capacity to even stand. Hence, his functional
disability is ascertained to be 13%.
45. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is
concerned, as per the petitioner’s Voter Card Ex. PW1/2 and PAN card
Ex. PW1/3, his date of birth is 15.12.1988. The date of accident is
27.08.2021. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was
32 years. Therefore, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ
2700 (SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 50% as he
was less than 40 years of age at the time of accident and in a
permanent employment.
46. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court in case of Raj Kumar Malik v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra), the pension component to the extent of 50% has to be deducted.
Further, as per the observations of 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.
47. As already discussed in the preceding para, the income of
the petitioner has been taken as Rs. 23,545/-. In view of the above, the
loss of Income on account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:02:04 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 19 of 33
Monthly income Rs. 23,545/-
Annual Income Rs. 23,545/- x 12 =
Rs. 2,82,540/-
Add Future Prospects @50% Rs. 1,41,270/-
Total income Rs. 4,23,810/-
Less pension component @ 50% Rs. 2,11,905/-
Disability @ 13% Rs. 2,11,905/- x 13%= Rs. 27,547.65
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 27,547.65 x 9 = Rs. 2,47,928.85
(9) (rounded off to Rs. 2,47,929/-)Future medical expenses
48. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards
future medical expenses. It is stated that the petitioner was operated
upon and implants were put in his leg which would be required to be
removed in the future. However, no such treatment papers are proved
that the implants were inserted in his leg or they wold be required to be
removed later on. No such documents are placed on record that he is
still undergoing treatment. Its been almost 5.5 years since the accident.
Hence, no amount is awarded under this head.
49. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09 16:02:10 +0530 MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 20 of 33 Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 53,203/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 23,545/- Loss of income x 3 months Rs. 23,545/- x 3 = Rs.70,635/- Add future prospects 50% Less pension component 50%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 2,47,929/-
% 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.50,000/- 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. Total Rs. 6,46,767/- Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09 16:02:15 +0530 MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 21 of 33
50. 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. 23.12.2021 till
realization.
DISBURSEMENT
51. 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. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month.
52. 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
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:02:21 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 22 of 33
ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the
place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the
permission of the court.
(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.”
53. However, in a recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled as Parminder Singh vs Honey Goyal on
18 March, 2025 in S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020 has held that :
“17. The case in hand pertains to the compensation
awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. The general
practice followed by the insurance companies, where the
compensation is not disputed, is to deposit the same
before the Tribunal. Instead of following that process, a
direction can always be issued to transfer the amount
into the bank account(s) of the claimant(s) with
intimation to the Tribunal.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:02:27 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 23 of 33
17.1 For that purpose, the Tribunals at the initial stage of
pleadings or at the stage of leading evidence may require
the claimant(s) to furnish their bank account particulars
to the Tribunal along with the requisite proof, so that at
the stage of passing of the award the Tribunal may
direct that the amount of compensation be transferred
in the account of the claimant and if there are more
than one then in their respective accounts. If there is no
bank account, then they should be required to open the
bank account either individually or jointly with family
members only. It should also be mandated that, in case
there is any change in the bank account particulars of the
claimant(s) during the pendency of the claim petition
they should update the same before the Tribunal. This
should be ensured before passing of the final award. It
may be ensured that the bank account should be in the
name of the claimant(s) and if minor, through
guardian(s) and in no case it should be a joint account
with any person, who is not a family member. The
transfer of the amount in the bank account, particulars of
which have been furnished by the claimant(s), as
mentioned in the award, shall be treated as satisfaction
of the award. Intimation of compliance should be
furnished to the Tribunal.”
54. 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.
55. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 8,96,986/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty Six
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:02:33 +0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 24 of 33
only), Rs. 2,96,986/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand Nine
Hundred Eighty Six only) be released to the petitioner/claimant
immediately in his bank account on furnishing of his bank account
details with SBI Tis Hazari, Delhi.
56. The balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs
only) shall be put in 20 monthly fixed deposits in his name in his
bank account of equal amount of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 20 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.
57. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 27.08.2021 Name of the Injured: Vikram Saini Age of the Injured: Presently 37 years Occupation of the Injured: Conductor in DTC Income of the Injured: Rs. 23,545/- Nature of Injury: Grievous Medical Treatment taken: LNJP Hospital, Delhi Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09 16:02:38 +0530 MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 25 of 33 Period of Hospitalization: Not proved Whether any permanent: Yes disability? COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal No. 1. Pecuniary Loss: (i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 53,203/- (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. 23,545/- (vi) Loss of income x 3 months Rs.70,635/- (vii) Add future prospects 50% 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.50,000/- (iv) Nil Disfiguration (v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09 MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 26 of 33 16:02:44 +0530 (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 26%
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 13%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 2,47,929/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 6,46,767/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous –
award passed by Ld. Predecessor)
to be deducted from present
award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 2,50,219/-
award w.e.f. 23.12.2021 till
realization
9. Total amount including Interest Rs. 8,96,986/-
10. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 55 & 56
11. Award amount kept in FDRs As mentioned in para nos. 56
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2026.04.09
16:02:49 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 27 of 33
12. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 55 & 56
award amount of the claimant(s)
13. Next date for compliance of the 09.05.2026
award
LIABILITY:
58. 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. The respondent no. 2 has stated in the WS that he had sold the
offending vehicle to the respondent no.1 long ago. However, no
evidence to prove the same was led by the respondent no.2. As per
record, he was the registered owner of the offending vehicle at the time
of the accident. Hence, the respondents no. 1 & 2 are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is
accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the
respondents.
RELIEF:
59. The respondent no. 1 & 2 are directed to deposit a sum
of Rs. 6,46,767/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Seven
Hundred Sixty Seven only) along with interest @ 9% from the date
of filing of DAR i.e. 23.12.2021 till realization with the Civil Nazir of
this Tribunal 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
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2026.04.09
16:02:55
+0530MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 28 of 33
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
60. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
11.05.2026 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). Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:03:01 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 29 of 33
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 9th April 2026. Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:03:06 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 30 of 33
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL
MOTOR VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022
(PL. SEE RULE 150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 27.08.2021
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 07.09.2021
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
N/A
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
N/A
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner N/A
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance N/A
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
N/A
VIA from the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of DAR 23.12.2021
9 Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of
the Investigating Officer? If N/A
so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the N/A
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his N/A
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:03:13 +0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 31 of 33
12 Whether there was any delay
or deficiency on the part of N/A
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 09.04.2026
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 05.01.2022
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect on
the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
N/A (Not produced)
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 16:03:18
Date: 2026.04.09
+0530
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 32 of 33
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
No.
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 21.02.2026
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2026.04.09
16:03:24 +0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
09.04.2026
MACT no. 16/2022 Vikram Saini Vs. Rohit Kumar & Anr. Page 33 of 33