Delhi District Court
Vinod (Dar) vs Jagtar Singh (277/20 K Kunj) on 13 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ADITI GARG
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No.: 584/2021
FIR no. 277/2020
PS Kalindi Kunj
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.: DLSE01 -008426-2021
Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors.
Vinod
S/o Ishwar Singh
R/o 1490, Phase-3, JJ Colony
Madanpur Khadar, Sarita Vihar
South Delhi, Delhi -78
.....Petitioner / Claimant
Versus
1. Jagtar Singh
S/o Ashok Kumar
R/o Village Hasanpur Nera
Balmiki Mandir Dera Bassi,
PS Laru Sas Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
.....R-1/ Driver
2. Mohan Singh
S/o Charanjit Singh
R/o H. No. 1A, Gali no. 1,
Sarswati Vihar, Dera Bassi
SAS Nagar, Punjab.
.....R-2/ Owner
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 41
3. Luxmi Kant
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass
R/o Village Mirpur, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
.....R-3/ Possession Holder
4. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
....R-4/ Insurance Co.
Date of accident : 16.08.2020
Date of filing of DAR : 29.09.2021
Date of Decision : 13.04.2026
AWARD
1. DAR
(a). Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as DAR)
was filed by IO in terms of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act,
which is treated as Claim Petition under Section 166 (1) read
with Section 166 (4) MV Act. It pertains to alleged accident of
injured Sh. Vinod (hereinafter referred as claimant) by vehicle
bearing Reg. No. PB AF 6010 (hereinafter referred as offending
vehicle), which was driven by Sh. Jagtar Singh (hereinafter
referred as R-1), owned by Sh. Mohan Singh (hereinafter
referred as R-2), currently possessed by Luxmi Kant (hereinafter
referred as R-3) and insured with M/s Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred as R-4).
2. Brief Facts:
(a) Preliminary information regarding the accident was
received on 16.08.2020 through a PCR call, which was recorded
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 41
vide DD No. 64A at PS Kalindi Kunj. Upon receipt of the said
information, the concerned police officials immediately reached
the spot of the accident, i.e., Agra Canal Road, near NTPC Eco
Park (Lohia Pul), where they found the alleged offending vehicle
(truck) and one Apache RTR motorcycle bearing registration No.
DL-3SEE-3288 in an accidental condition. It was revealed that
the injured persons had already been removed to the hospital.
The driver of the offending truck was found present at the spot,
who disclosed his name as Jagtar Singh. No eye-witness or PCR
caller was found present at the spot at that time. Accordingly, an
FIR was registered on the basis of the information provided by
the PCR caller as recorded in DD No. 64A. The accidental
vehicles were taken into police possession. Subsequently, upon
receipt of DD No. 11A, the MLCs of three injured persons,
namely Rajesh Kumar, Vinod, and Rajveer Singh, were collected
from AIIMS Trauma Centre. The documents pertaining to the
offending vehicle were seized by the police. During
investigation, the PCR caller was contacted, who disclosed his
name as Suraj Kumar. In his statement, he stated that on the date
of the accident, at about 11:25 PM, while he was returning home
via Agra Canal Road on his motorcycle and reached near NTPC
Eco Park, he noticed a gathering of people and came to know
about an accident involving a motorcycle and a truck, in which
three persons were injured. Thereafter, he made a call to the
PCR.
(b) A notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was
served upon the owner of the offending vehicle, namely Laxmi
Kant S/o Bhagwan Dass, who stated that he had purchased the
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 41
said vehicle from Mohan Singh on 12.08.2020 and confirmed
that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by
his driver, Jagtar Singh. He also produced a copy of the General
Power of Attorney. His statement was recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. Mechanical inspection of both the accidental
vehicles was conducted.
(c) On 30.08.2020, injured Rajveer Singh appeared at the
police station and got his statement recorded. He stated that he
operates a bus between Badarpur and Khatu Shyam. On
16.08.2020, after returning from Khatu Shyam to Badarpur and
he along with his relative Rajesh and one Vinod (friend of
Rajesh) were proceeding towards Madanpur Khadar, JJ Colony
on a motorcycle, which was being driven by him. When they
reached near the spot of the accident, the driver of the offending
vehicle, who was driving in a rash and negligent manner, hit the
motorcycle from the side. As a result, the motorcycle got
entangled with the truck, and the driver of the offending vehicle
suddenly applied brakes, causing the motorcycle to collide, due
to which all three fell on the road along with the motorcycle and
sustained injuries. He further stated that a public person made a
call to the police at number 100 and the driver of the offending
truck was apprehended at the spot. The statements of the other
injured persons, namely Rajesh Kumar and Vinod, were also
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and they corroborated the
version of Rajveer Singh.
(d) The site plan was prepared at the instance of injured
Rajveer Singh. The documents of the offending vehicle were
verified from the concerned authority and were found to be in
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 41
order. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the driver of the offending vehicle for offences under
Sections 279/338 IPC for driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and causing injuries to the victims. The
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was also filed by the
Investigating Officer before this Tribunal.
3. Reply:
(a) A written statement was filed on behalf of the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle, wherein they specifically denied
any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. It was stated that on the date of the accident,
R-1 was driving the truck with due care and caution, and that the
accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the injured
persons. It was further stated that the injured persons, while
riding the motorcycle at a high speed, came from the side and
collided with the truck. It was also averred that R-1 had extended
help to the injured persons after the accident. Other general
defences were also taken. It was further stated that the offending
vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident, and in the
event any liability to pay compensation is fastened, the same
would be that of the insurance company.
(b) A written statement was also filed on behalf of the
Insurance Company, wherein it was contended that the alleged
accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the
motorcycle, who failed to maintain a safe distance from the
offending vehicle. It was further pleaded that at the time of the
accident, three persons were riding on the motorcycle (triple
riding), in violation of traffic rules. It was also contended that the
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 41
driver of the motorcycle was also not holding a valid and
effective driving licence at the relevant time. The Insurance
Company, however, admitted that the offending vehicle was duly
insured under a valid policy on the date of the accident.
4. Issues:
(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 02.11.2021:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
16.08.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. PB AF
6010 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
ii). Whether the injured is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what
extent and from whom?OPP
iii). Relief.
5. A report has been received regarding the assessment of
disability, indicating that the total permanent physical
impairment in relation to the whole body is 49%.
6. Evidence:
(a) Matter was then listed for Petitioner Evidence. PW-1 Sh.
Vinod tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A and relied
upon relevant documents pertaining to accident including
medical treatment records, disability certificates, DAR and also
his identify proofs as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6. He was further
cross examined on behalf of counsel for insurance company
(b) Other injured /witnesses were separately examined in other
connected case bearing MACT no. 583/2021 & 585/2021.
(c) Petitioner Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for
Respondent Evidence. Any evidence was however not led on
behalf of any of the respondents despite opportunity. Matter was
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 41
subsequently listed for Final Arguments.
6. Final Arguments:
(a) Final Arguments were advanced by the contesting
counsels.
(b) Ld. counsel for the claimant submitted that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.
1. It is further submitted that the injured was employed as a
driver by profession and used to drive a TSR in New Delhi. It is
stated that, on account of the injuries sustained in the accident,
the injured remained under prolonged medical treatment and
suffered a considerable loss of income. It is further submitted that
the injured sustained neurological disability as a result of
traumatic brain injuries, leading to 49% permanent physical
impairment in relation to the whole body, which has rendered
him incapacitated from resuming his previous avocation. It is,
therefore, prayed that just and reasonable compensation be
awarded to the injured for the injuries sustained, along with
compensation towards future loss of income.
(c) On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance
Company argued that the accident did not occur due to fault of
the truck driver. It is submitted that the motorcycle had hit the
truck from behind and the damages on the rear side of the truck
clearly show that the truck did not hit the motorcycle. It is further
argued that there were three persons riding on the motorcycle
which itself amounts to negligence. It is also pointed out that
only one person was wearing helmet. It is further submitted that
the driver of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 41
licence and had also failed to maintain safe distance from the
vehicle ahead. It is prayed that there was contributory negligence
on part of the motorcycle driver and at least 50% deduction is
liable to be made. Ld. counsel for the insurance company has
also placed reliance upon the judgments titled Reliance General
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jagdish & Ors. (MAC APP No.
1016/2015 & CM APPL No. 16295/2023) and Nishan Singh &
Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal
No. 10145 of 2016), in support of his contention regarding
deduction on account of contributory negligence.
7. Discussion:
(a) On the basis of material on record, evidence adduced and
arguments addressed, issue wise findings are as under :
Issue No.1
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road traffic accident on
16.08.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. PB AF
6010 being driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with R-3? OPP.
(b) Claimant/Rajveer (injured in connected case) deposed
about the manner of accident through his affidavit Ex. PW1/A
and stated that on the date of accident he along with other injured
persons was travelling on motorcycle. He stated that Rajesh who
is his cousin, came to his office at about 10.30 PM on his
motorcycle and thereafter they picked Vinod (injured in present
case) from Nayapul at about 11.00 PM. He has further clarified
the sitting position by stating that he was driving the motorcycle,
Rajesh was sitting behind him and Vinod was sitting at the
rearmost side. He has stated that the place of accident was about
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 41
2 km from the place where Vinod was picked up. He has further
stated that there was no traffic at that time, there was no divider
and only one vehicle could pass on each side of the road and
even the street lights were not functioning. He has clearly stated
that the offending vehicle came from the opposite direction in
zig-zag manner and hit their motorcycle, due to which all of them
fell down and sustained injuries. He has denied any negligence
on his part. He was cross examined by learned counsel for the
Insurance Company at length, however nothing material could be
elicited to discredit his testimony. He remained consistent on
material aspects and denied the suggestion that the accident
occurred due to his negligence or due to not maintaining safe
distance.
(c) Injured Rajesh has also entered the witness box in the
connected case and supported the case of the claimants. He has
stated that on the date of accident he had gone to meet his
relative and thereafter they were travelling together on the
motorcycle. He has stated that they reached the place of accident
at about 11.25-11.50 PM. He has also stated that the street lights
were not working at the spot. He has further stated that the
offending vehicle hit their motorcycle and due to the impact they
fell down. He has denied any negligence on their part.
(d) Similarly, injured Vinod has also supported the case of the
claimants. He has stated that he joined the other two injured
persons and all of them were travelling on the motorcycle. He
has also clarified the sitting position and stated that the offending
vehicle came and hit them, due to which they fell down and
sustained injuries. He has also denied any negligence on their
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 41
part.
(e) All the three injured persons have been cross examined by
the Insurance Company, however they have remained firm on the
fact that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the
offending vehicle. Their testimonies are natural and trustworthy
and there is no reason to disbelieve them.
(f) The police record also fully supports the case of the
claimants. The information regarding the accident was given to
the police immediately and the police reached the spot without
delay. The offending vehicle as well as the motorcycle were
found at the spot. Both the vehicles were seized and their
mechanical inspection was conducted. Statements of the injured
persons were recorded and documents were verified. Notice was
also given to the owner who confirmed that the offending vehicle
was being driven by respondent no.1 at the time of accident.
Thereafter, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the
offending vehicle. There is nothing on record to show that the
said charge sheet or FIR was ever challenged. It is also relevant
to note that the driver of the offending vehicle has not entered
into the witness box to explain his version of the accident. No
evidence in defence has been led. Even the Insurance Company
has not produced the driver to rebut the case of the claimants. In
these circumstances, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn
against the driver of the offending vehicle.
(g) The Insurance Company has tried to point out certain
variations in the statements of the injured persons during cross
examination, however the same are minor in nature and are
bound to occur due to lapse of time. On the main aspect, all the
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 41
injured persons have consistently stated that the offending
vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and had
hit their motorcycle. Their version is also supported by the
medical record, site plan and mechanical inspection report. Thus,
from the testimonies of the injured persons coupled with the
police record, it stands proved that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent
no.1.
(h) So far as the plea of contributory negligence is concerned,
it has come on record that three persons were travelling on the
motorcycle and the fact of triple riding stands admitted.
Undoubtedly, triple riding amounts to a violation of traffic rules
and may, in certain circumstances, affect the balance and control
of the vehicle. However, in the present case, there is nothing on
record to establish that the accident occurred due to any
negligence on the part of the victims or that the motorcycle had
become unstable or was being driven in an unsafe manner on
account of triple riding. The consistent case of the claimants is
that the offending truck hit the motorcycle while attempting to
overtake, which was a situation not within the control of the
victims. In the absence of any cogent evidence linking the act of
triple riding with the cause of the accident, mere violation of
traffic rules, by itself, cannot lead to an inference of contributory
negligence. Accordingly, no deduction is warranted on this
ground.
(i) Further, the contention of the insurance company regarding
non-wearing of helmets also remains unsubstantiated in the case
of injured Rajesh and Rajveer. On the contrary, the victims have
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 41
consistently stated that they were wearing helmets at the relevant
time. However, insofar as injured Vinod is concerned, the
medical record reflects that he suffered severe traumatic head
injuries leading to permanent disability. The nature and location
of injuries indicate direct impact to the head region. Though it is
not a case of crush injury under the wheels of the offending
vehicle, the injuries appear to have been sustained due to impact
following the collision and fall. In such circumstances, the use of
a properly fastened and standard (ISI-marked) helmet would
have significantly reduced the severity of head injuries. The
extent of neurological damage suggests either absence of
effective head protection or inadequate fastening/use of helmet at
the relevant time. Therefore, while the primary cause of the
accident remains the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle, a limited degree of contributory negligence can be
attributed to injured Vinod for failure to ensure adequate
protective measures. Accordingly, a deduction of 10% is made
from the compensation payable to injured Vinod on this count.
(j) It is settled that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant
step towards the inference of negligence on the part of driver of
the offending vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the
case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ
287 Delhi as referred and relied by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr
SLP (C) No. 10351/2019). It is also settled that adverse inference
can be drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle in case
he does not appear as a witness to depose and clarify about his
stance in respect of the accident. (support drawn from the
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 41
judgment in the case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd.
Vs. Kamlesh 2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
(k) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. This view has been supported in the judgments of
Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &
Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530; Kaushnumma Begum & Ors. v. New
India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2001 ACJ 421 (SC); and National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287.
(l) All material on record, including GD entries, FIR, charge-
sheet, mechanical inspection reports, findings, also as no attempt
has been made by the contesting respondents to set up any
defence support the necessary inference that the accident
occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of offending
vehicle. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimant and against
the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
9 Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 41
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
as the case may be: Provided that where such application makes
a claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the
death or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and
any other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise)
for compensation in respect of such death or permanent
disablement shall be disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter X.
.
.
10 “….Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
battered.” {as observed in the case of H. West and Son Limited
Vs. Shephard 1958 -65 ACJ 504 (HL, England)}. It recognizes
that the physical damage caused once cannot be fully undone.
Something which remains as an indelible permanent sign of an
unfortunate incident cannot be balanced merely by paying some
monetary compensation. The process of damage and the ugly
scars left on physical body and mental self, navigating through
the entire process post accident and the unintended but
compulsory turns that it brings in the course of life is indeed
painful and traumatic. It is also required to be underlined that the
damage is not restricted to the tangible injuries visible on the
body of the injured rather catapults the lives of his family
members also.
11. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small
attempt to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 41
hairpin unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring
some elbow space for him to move towards stability and
normalcy to the extent possible. The underlying principle
remains thus to make good the damage so far as possible as
equivalent in money.
12. Section 168 MV Act puts an obligation over Tribunal to
assess ‘just’ compensation with the object of putting the sufferer
in the same position as nearly as possible as he would have been
if he had not sustained the wrong. It is worthwhile to reproduce
certain observations made by Karnataka High Court in the case
of K. Narasimha Murthy v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd ILR 2004
KAR 2471 as referred and relied in the case of Rekha Jain Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited Civil Appeal No. 5370-
5372 of 2013 which enumerates the milestones to be kept in
mind by the Tribunal in an endevour to assess just compensation,
at the same time acknowledging that any amount of money
cannot compensate fully an injured man or completely renew a
shattered human physical frame with the observations as under:
“16. The Courts and Tribunals, in bodily injury cases, while
assessing compensation, should take into account all relevant
circumstances, evidence, legal principles governing
quantification of compensation. Further, they have to
approach the issue of awarding compensation on the larger
perspectives of justice, equity and good conscience and
eschew technicalities in the decision-making. There should be
realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts that the
possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable of
all human rights, and that all possessions and ownership are
extensions of this primary right, while awarding
compensation for bodily injuries. Bodily injury is to be
treated as a deprivation which entitles a claimant to damages.
The amount of damages varies according to gravity of
injuries.”
13. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 41
methodology known to law as social and legal security to a
victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual
ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is
understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss
is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset
with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore,
complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly
possible. The endevour is thus to make an assessment as best and
as fair as possible under the given circumstance. The uncertainty
of bringing justness to an assessment has been recognized, still
holding that substantial damages must be awarded. The
observations made by Lord Halsbury in the case of Mediana In re
1900 AC 113 (HL) give valuable insights into the aspect and
reproduced as under:
“……Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is
one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay
down any principle upon which you can give damages;
nevertheless it is remitted to the jury or those who stand in
place of the jury, to consider what compensation in money
shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the most
familiar and ordinary case: how is anybody to measure
pain and suffering in money counted? Nobody can suggest
that you can by any arithmetical calculation establish what
is the exact amount of money which would represent such
a thing as the pain and suffering which a person has
undergone by reason of an accident……. But nevertheless
the law recognises that as a topic upon which damages may
be given”
14. The uncertainty involved has also been recognized by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rekha Jain (supra)
where observations of Lord Blacburn in the case of Livingstone
Vs. Rawyards Coal Company were referred as under:
“…….where any injury is to be compensated by damages,
in settling the sum of money to be given… you should as
nearly as possible get at that sum of money which will putMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 41
the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he
would have been if he had not sustained the wrong….”
15. It is further observed by their Lordship in the case of
Rekha Jain (supra) as follows:
“41…..Besides, the Court is well advised to remember that
the measures of damages in all these cases ‘should be such
as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply
atoned for his misadventure’. The observation of Lord
Devlin that the proper approach to the problem or to adopt
a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a
fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to ‘hold up
his head among his neighbours and say with their approval
that he has done the fair thing’ is quite opposite to be kept
in mind by the Court in assessing compensation in personal
injury cases.”
16. It is also settled that the compensation is not granted only
for the physical injury but for the entire loss which results from
the injury in an endevour to place the victim in a position as close
as possible as prior to the accident (support drawn from National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors (2017) 16
SCC 680 also in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343). It
is also settled as held in catena of judgments that the Motor
Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the object of
the Tribunal ought to be to assist the injured persons, (support
drawn from Helen C Rebello (Mrs) & Ors. v. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and Anr (1999) 1 SCC 90).
17. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated
for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those
natural amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or
could have earned (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred
and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 41
pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India
Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
18. What is required of the Tribunal is to attempt an objective
assessment of damages as nearly as possible without fanciful or
whimsical speculation even though, some conjecture specially in
reference of the nature of disability and it consequence would be
inevitable. {support drawn from the case of Raj Kumar (supra) as
referred and relied in case of Sidram (supra)}.
19. Observing that a measure of damages cannot be arrived with
precise mathematical calculations and that much depends upon
peculiar facts and circumstances of any matter, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India elaborated upon the expression “which appears to
it to be just” in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC v.
Mahadeva Shetty and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197.
20. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights
into the factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination
of quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
“10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while
determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view
the sufferings of the injured person which would include his
inability to lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries and
his ability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have
earned. Hence, while computing compensation the approach of
the Tribunal or a court has to be broad- based. Needless to say, it
would involve some guesswork as there cannot be any
mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to determine the
quantum of compensation. In determination of compensation the
fundamental criterion of “just compensation” should beMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 41
inhered.”
21. The compensation has been broadly delineated as pecuniary
and non pecuniary in the case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest
Control India Pvt Ltd. 1995 AIR 755. It is worthwhile to
reproduce certain observations made therein:
“9….while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely
to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the
loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of
matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able
to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of
life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship,
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life.”
22. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal
injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further
discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 41
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in
serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical
evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that
compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)
(b),
(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,
loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and
loss of expectation of life.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under
Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve
reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the
evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses–
Item (iii)–depends upon specific medical evidence regarding
need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-
pecuniary damages–Items (iv), (v) and (vi)–involves
determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability
suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of
the claimant. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain
necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary.
What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss
of future earnings on account of permanent disability–Item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case…”
23. Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
a) Loss of Income : (a) PW-1/Claimant deposed that he was
working as a TSR driver at the time of the accident and earningMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 41
Rs.20,000/- per month. However, no documentary evidence has
been placed on record to substantiate the said income. The
claimant has filed his valid driving licence as Ex. PW1/6, which
at least establishes that he was engaged in a skilled vocation.
Further, as per his Aadhaar Card, his residence is shown to be at
Sarita Vihar, South Delhi. Accordingly, it can be reasonably
presumed that the claimant was earning his livelihood as a driver
in Delhi. In the absence of documentary proof of income, his
income is assessed on the basis of minimum wages applicable to
a skilled worker in Delhi on the date of the accident, i.e.,
Rs.18,563/- per month.
(b) The claimant has further deposed that he suffered a
substantial loss of income due to the injuries sustained in the
accident. The MLC (Ex. PW1/2) records injuries described as
“laceration over parieto-temporal scalp (5×2 cm) and left leg
(2×1 cm)”. The discharge summary placed on record reflects that
the claimant suffered serious head injuries, including right frontal
epidural hematoma (EDH), right frontal subdural hematoma
(SDH), multiple contusions, and fracture in the right temporal
region. The nature of injuries clearly indicates that the claimant
had suffered a grievous and life-threatening head injury requiring
specialized neurosurgical treatment, including operative
intervention. The subsequent discharge summary pertaining to
admission from 02.02.2023 to 03.02.2023 records right FTP
calvarial defect and post-decompressive status, which indicates
that the claimant had undergone decompressive surgery–a
serious neurosurgical procedure undertaken to relieve intracranial
pressure. The photographs placed on record further reflect visible
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 41
deformity in the temporal region. Although there is a gap in
continuous medical documentation for the intervening period, the
medical bills placed on record over an extended duration indicate
that the claimant remained under medical supervision and
continued treatment. Neurological injuries of such nature often
require prolonged management, including medication,
physiotherapy, and rehabilitation. The discharge summaries also
note that the patient would require long-term physiotherapy and
nursing care, and record the possibility of complications such as
infection, implant failure, or lack of improvement. Thus, the
absence of continuous documentation does not dilute the
seriousness and long-term impact of the injuries. In view of the
nature and gravity of injuries, it is evident that the claimant
would not have been in a position to resume his work for a
considerable period. The testimony of the claimant to this effect
inspires confidence and remains unshaken. However, in the
absence of specific documentary evidence regarding the exact
period of loss of income, a reasonable assessment is required.
Accordingly, the loss of income of the claimant is assessed for a
period of 12 months.
(c) Therefore, the loss of income is computed as follows:
Rs.18,563/- × 12 = Rs.2,22,756/-
24. Loss of future earning
(a) It is part of record that petitioner has been opined with
49% permanent physical impairment in relation to whole body
due to traumatic brain injuries with left side hemiplegia with
seizures.
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 22 of 41
(b) Before proceeding further, it is important to understand as
to what disability means and also types thereof. This aspect has
been delved into by Hon’ble SC in Raj Kumar (supra):
“8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability
refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a
person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result
of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from
motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Act”,
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)
of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose
of claiming compensation.”
(c) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 23 of 41
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impead his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(d). What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(e). Hon’ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 24 of 41
to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for
the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of
Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the
purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an
extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45%
permanent disability with reference to the whole body. The extent
of disability of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in terms of
a percentage of the total functions of that limb, obviously cannot
be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If
there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent
of permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140%
(that is 80% plus 60%). If different parts of the body have
suffered different percentages of disabilities, the sum total thereof
expressed in terms of the permanent disability with reference to
the whole body cannot obviously exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result
of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of
loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact
of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The
Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of
permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of
economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity,
arising from a permanent disability will be different from the
percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly
assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of
permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced
show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the
extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent
(percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured;
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms ofMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 25 of 41
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]
and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider and
decide with reference to the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent
total disablement or permanent partial disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire
body, that is, the permanent disability suffered by the
person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it
will proceed to ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal
ascertains the actual extent of permanent disability of the
claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to determine
whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on the
actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal has to
first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on in spite
of the permanent disability and what he could not do as a result of
the permanent disability (this is also relevant for awarding
compensation under the head of loss of amenities of life). The
second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession and nature of
work before the accident, as also his age. The third step is to find
out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning any
kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on the activities
and functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he
was prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 26 of 41
scale of activities and functions so that he continues to earn or can
continue to earn his livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few
cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence,
concludes that the percentage of loss of earning capacity is
the same as the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity
is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal
with reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.”
(f) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar
& Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was
deliberated and following observations as relevant in the context
were made:
“In the context of loss of future earning, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of work being performed by the
person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise and
once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same injury or
loss may affect two different persons in different ways. Take
the case of a marginal farmer who does his cultivation work
himself and ploughs his land with his own two hands; or the
puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the main means ofMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 27 of 41
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or
the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road
insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of
a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the
loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg
(or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound
to have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or
social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working
in the office would not interfere with his work/earning
capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal
farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(g) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is
understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual
dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to
a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically
determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional
disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held
in various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
and Hon’ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would
result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however,
might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each
other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(h) In the case of Raj Kumar (supra), the physical functional
disability of left leg was assessed to be 75% and total body
disability at 37.5 %. In this case, functional disability was also
assessed at 75% and it was observed that the extent of physical
functional disability has to be considered so as to grant just and
proper compensation towards loss of future earning as the
earning capacity of injured was totally negated having beenMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 28 of 41
rendered incapable of doing any manual work. It was also held
that if permanent disability in relation to particular limb renders
the injured permanently disabled from pursuing his normal
vocation or any other similar work, there is no reason as to why
compensation should be granted on the basis of physical
disability in relation to whole body. In another matter of Syed
Sadiq Etc vs Divisional Manager,United India AIR 2014
SUPREME COURT 1052, where functional disability was
considered to be 65% by Hon’ble High Court in case of a
vegetable vendor whose right leg had to be amputated was set
aside and it was observed that loss of limb is often equivalent to
loss of livelihood specially in manual labour cases and
determined the functional disability at 85%. In another matter of
Arvind Kumar Mishra, injured suffered grievous injuries and
remained in coma for about 2 months and was held to be
permanently disabled to the extent of 70% with his right hand
amputated whereas his loss of earning capacity was held to be
90%. Similarly in case of K Janardhan v United India Insurance
Company AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2384, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, held that a tanker driver suffered 100% functional
disability and incapacity to earn as a tanker driver as his right leg
was amputated from the knee. In the case of Pappu Deo Yadav v
Naresh Kumar, AIR 2020 SC 4424, injured suffered loss of an
arm and therefore, was unable to carry out his functions as a
typist / data entry operator and thus acknowledging the impact of
injury upon the income generating capacity of victim, the extent
of functional disablement and loss of income generating earning
capacity was equated with the extent of permanent disablement
as medically assessed at 89%. Similarly, in the case of SidramMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 29 of 41
(supra), injured suffered paraplegia due to accident and was
medically assessed with permanent disability to the tune of 45%,
however, he was held to have suffered 100% loss of earning
capacity.
(i) Functional Disability Assessment in present case:
(a) It is a matter of record that the petitioner has been assessed
with 49% permanent physical impairment in relation to the whole
body on account of traumatic brain injuries, resulting in left-
sided hemiplegia along with seizures. The said disability
certificate has not been disputed. While assessing functional
disability, it is settled that the same is not to be mechanically
equated with the percentage of physical impairment, but has to be
evaluated in the context of the nature of avocation of the injured
and the impact of such disability on his earning capacity. In the
present case, as already discussed, the Tribunal has accepted that
the injured was working as a driver by profession. The job of a
driver requires full motor coordination, alertness, reflexes,
balance, and continuous cognitive engagement. The presence of
left-sided hemiplegia and seizure disorder would significantly
impair these essential faculties, thereby directly affecting his
ability to safely and effectively perform his duties as a driver.
(b) The claimant has categorically deposed that he is unable to
perform his work as before. The nature of injuries, particularly
traumatic brain injury with neurological deficit, speaks for itself.
In such circumstances, the principle of res ipsa loquitur applies,
and the injured is not required to demonstrate in exact terms the
extent of functional limitations, as the injuries themselves
reasonably indicate the impairment caused in day to day
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 30 of 41
functioning and occupational capacity. Such injuries are likely to
hamper not only his previous avocation but also a wide range of
other physical and cognitive activities. At the same time, it is
noted that the claimant has entered the witness box and deposed
before the Tribunal, which indicates that he retains a certain level
of cognitive function, including the ability to understand and
respond. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has suffered total
functional disability. In view of the nature of injuries, the
profession of the injured, and the overall impact on his earning
capacity, this Tribunal finds it appropriate to assess the functional
disability of the claimant at 49%, which is commensurate with
the permanent physical impairment assessed in relation to the
whole body.
24 (i) Future Prospect:
(a) It is also held therein that future prospect (as laid down in
the well considered judgment of National Insurance Company
Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only
in fatal cases but also in the case of permanent disability. The
observations made in the said case as relevant to the context are
reproduced hereunder:
“6. The principle consistently followed by this court in
assessing motor vehicle compensation claims, is to place the
victim in as near a position as she or he was in before the
accident, with other compensatory directions for loss of
amenities and other payments. These general principles have
been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in cases
of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor
accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for
future loss of income, amounts for future Govind Yadav v.
New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683. This court referred to
the pronouncements in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India)MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 31 of 41
(P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551; Nizam’s Institute of Medical
Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma
Kumari v. Madan Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v.
Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these
principles by stating that the courts should, “in determining the
quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident,
who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the
victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts
should always be made to award adequate compensation not
only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss
of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability
caused due to the accident.” These decisions were also
followed in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay
Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two,
the extent of disability. On the first question, the High Court
no doubt, is technically correct in holding that Pranay Sethi
involved assessment of compensation in a case where the
victim died. However, it went wrong in saying that later, the
three-judge bench decision in Jagdish was not binding, but
rather that the subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent
that it did not award compensation for future prospects, was
binding. This court is of the opinion that there was no
justification for the High Court to have read the previous
rulings of this court, to exclude the possibility of compensation
for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of
Pranay Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the
possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases – and admits such possibility of future
prospects, in case of the victim’s death.
(b) Hon’ble Supreme Court further discussed several cases
involving permanent disability and observed as under:
“20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic
approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the
realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of
disabilities, and compensation under various heads.
.
.
What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after decision, is
the impact of the injury upon the income generating capacity
of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or arm) and its severity
on that account is to be judged in relation to the profession,
vocation or business of the victim; there cannot be a blind
arithmetic formula for ready application. On an overview ofMACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 32 of 41
the principles outlined in the previous decisions, it is apparent
that the income generating capacity of the appellant was
undoubtedly severely affected”.
(c) Aadhar Card forms part of DAR, as per which his date of
birth is 01.01.1986, therefore, his age as on the date of accident
was about 34 years. Since the injured was below the age of 40
years (at the time of accident) and purportedly earning fixed
income thus as mandated in case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and
other case laws, the percentage towards future prospect is taken
to be @ 40 %. Further, as tabulated in the case of Sarla Verma
(supra), multiplier of 16 is applicable.
24(ii) In view of the above discussion of law, the calculation
under future loss of income in the present case is as under:
(a) Annual income (Rs.18563/- x12) = Rs.2,22,756/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs.2,22,756/- ) = Rs.89,102/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs.3,11,858/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.3,11,858/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
(f) Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
49% (Rs.3,11,858/- x 16) = Rs. 24,44,967/-
25. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : – Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : Medical Rs. 2,202/-
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 33 of 41
bills filed as Ex.PW1/4 (colly) for a total
sum of Rs.2,202/-.
.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No Rs. 25,000/-
documentary evidence has been placed
on record to substantiate the expenditure
incurred towards conveyance. However,
the medical record reflects that the
injured suffered a traumatic head injury,
noted in the discharge summary as right
frontal EDH, along with injury in the
temporal region. The injured was again
admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre from
02.02.2023 to 03.02.2023 with a
diagnosis of right FTP calvarial defect.
Although no continuous treatment record
for the intervening period of more than
two years has been filed, the medical
bills placed on record at short intervals,
spanning more than about one year,
indicate that the injured was not in a
stable condition and must have remained
under active medical supervision,
requiring frequent visits to medical
facilities along with attendant family
members. In such circumstances, it can
be reasonably inferred that the injured
would have incurred expenditure
towards conveyance. Accordingly, a sum
of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards
conveyance.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : No Rs.50,000/-
documentary evidence has been placed
on record with respect to expenditure
incurred on special diet. However,
considering the nature of injuries
discussed in the preceding paragraph,
particularly the neurological injuries
sustained by the claimant, it can be
reasonably inferred that he must have
been advised to consume a nutritious,
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 34 of 41
protein-rich and balanced diet to aid
neurological recovery and overall
healing. In such circumstances, even in
the absence of documentary proof,
compensation towards special diet can be
awarded on a reasonable estimate.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is
awarded towards special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : No Rs.50,000/-
documentary evidence has been placed
on record to prove the engagement of an
attendant. However, considering the
nature and extent of injuries sustained by
the claimant, it can be reasonably
inferred that he would have required the
assistance of an attendant during the
period of treatment and recovery. Even if
such services were rendered by family
members, the same cannot be denied
compensation. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards attendant
charges.
(v) Loss of income : As discussed Rs.2,22,756/-
above:
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of mental and physical Rs. 2,00,000/-
shock as well as (ii) pain and suffering : (Rs.1,00,000/-+Rs.1,00,000/-)
Considering the injuries sustained by
injured and discussed earlier it is
considered that he must have suffered
immense physical, mental and emotional
trauma for what he was compelled to
undergo on account of injuries sustained
in the accident. There is no measure with
the court to quantify the pain and
suffering of the injured, however, an
attempt is being made to compensate in
terms of money for the agony he must
have suffered. Therefore, an amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- each for both
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 35 of 41
heads) is awarded to the injured against
pain, suffering as well as mental trauma
sustained in the accident.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : It Rs.25,000/-
compensates the victim on account of his
inability to enjoy the basic amenities of
life as any other normal person can,
taking into account the age and the
deprivation he would have to undergo
and suffer due to injuries. Considering
the nature of injuries suffered by
claimant, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is
awarded towards loss of amenities.
(iv) Loss of future Income: As discussed Rs. 24,44,967/-
above:
(v) Loss of disfigurement: The medical Rs.50,000/-
record as well as the photographs placed
on record reflect that the injured has
suffered visible deformity in the
temporal region of the head on account
of the injuries and subsequent surgical
intervention. Such disfigurement,
particularly involving the head, not only
affects the physical appearance of the
injured but also has a bearing on his self-
esteem, social interaction, and overall
quality of life. Disfigurement constitutes
a distinct head of non-pecuniary
damages and is required to be
compensated separately from pain and
suffering and loss of amenities.
Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it
appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards disfigurement.
Total Compensation Rs.30,69,925/-
10% towards contributory
Deduction, if any, negligence as discussed
above:
Rs.30,69,925 (-) Rs.
3,06,992= Rs.27,62,933/-
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.27,62,933/-
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 36 of 41
Interest As directed
below
26. Interest :
(a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend
upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable
guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is
deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram
MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC
APP 70/2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court).
27. LIABILITY
(a) The issue of rash and negligent driving has already been
discussed and decided hereinabove, wherein it has been held that
the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by respondent no.1. The Insurance Company
has admitted the validity and genuineness of the insurance policy
in respect of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. No
statutory defence under the Motor Vehicles Act has been pleaded
or proved by the Insurance Company. In view of the above facts,
and in the absence of any statutory defence, the Insurance
Company is under a legal obligation to indemnify the
insured/owner for the vicarious liability arising out of the tortious
act of respondent no.1. Accordingly, the principal award
amount/compensation shall be payable by the Insurance
Company of the offending vehicle, along with simple interest @
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 37 of 41
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the DAR till its actual
realization. (If there is any order regarding excluding of interest
for specific period same be complied at the time of calculation of
award amount. Further, in case the matter adjourned sine die,
interest for the period i.e. the date of concerned order till revival
of the case, shall not be awarded. Further, if any auction
proceeds is received, same be adjusted in the final award
amount).
28. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to
furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case
number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station,
name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other
relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the
account titled “MACT FUND PARKING”, Account No.
00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code
110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
29. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Out of the total awarded amount, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) along with proportionate interest
thereon shall be kept in the form of monthly Fixed Deposit
Receipts (FDRs) of Rs.20,000/- each, in a phased manner. The
remaining awarded amount, along with proportionate interest,
shall be released to the claimant in his bank account.
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 38 of 41
30. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon’ble
High Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated
14.05.2025, the claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank
account details along with either a certificate of the banker giving
all details of the bank account of the person or persons entitled to
receive the compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of
cancelled cheque of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven
days of the date of Award, if not already placed on record. They
are also directed to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not
already filed.
31 Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further
directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the
claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper
verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the
bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for
release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount,
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
32. Directions with respect to Fixed Deposit:
(a) As per Practice Directions, Hon’ble High Court, vide reference no.
134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the bank shall invest the amount to be
deposited in fixed deposit with any nationalised bank and fixed deposit shall
be with the standing instructions to the bank to renew the same after
periodical intervals till further orders are passed by the Tribunal.
(b) The Bank shall not permit any joint name (s) to be added in the savings
bank account or fixed deposit accounts of victim i.e. the savings bank
account of the claimant shall be individual savings bank account and not a
joint account.
(c) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 39 of 41
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing System (ECS)
in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR (s) be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant near the place of
their residence.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on
the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/ or debit card to
claimant (s). However, in case the debit card and/ or cheque book have
already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of
the award amount. The bank shall debit freeze the account of the claimant
so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of the claimant from
any other branch of the bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to
the effect, that no cheque book and / or debit card have been issued and
shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and claimant shall
produce the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court on
the next date fixed for compliance.
33. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE
AWARD.
1 Date of accident 16.08.2020
2 Name of injured Vinod
3 Age of the injured 34 years
4 Occupation of the injured As per record
5 Income of the injured As per minimum wages.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury disability
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of Hospitalization As per record.
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury disability
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 40 of 41
disability?
34. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary DLSA and
concerned criminal court.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open court
ADITI by ADITI GARG
Date:
on 13.04.2026 GARG 2026.04.13
16:44:17 +0530
(Aditi Garg)
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
13.04.2026
MACT No.:584/2021 Vinod Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors. Page No. 41 of 41
