Delhi District Court
Saurabh Kumar vs Raj Kumar on 29 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 868/2021
FIR no. 05/2020
PS: Tappal
U/s 279/338/427 IPC
CNR No.DLSE01- 011149-2021
Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Ors.
1. Saurabh Kumar
S/o Satyapal Singh
R/o R-35, Sriniwaspuri
New Delhi-110065.
...Claimant
Versus
1. Raj Kumar
S/o Kanhaiya Lal
R/o Vill. Sangrampur Khair
Khair, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Driver / R-1
2. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
General Manager, Tehri Kothi,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Owner/ R-2
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 1 of 41
Digitally signed
by SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
ARORA Date:
2025.04.28
16:34:36 +0530
Date of accident : 05.01.2020
Date of filing of petition : 13.12.2021
Date of Decision : 29.04.2025
AWARD
1. In this case, claim petition under Section 166 and 140 M.V.
Act was filed on 13.12.2021 by Sh Saurabh Kumar (hereinafter
called the claimant) on account of injuries sustained by him in
the accident which took place on 04.01.2020 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 81BL 5059 (hereinafter
referred as Offending Vehicle), driven by Sh. Raj Kumar
(hereinafter called R-1) and owned by UPSRTC (hereinafter
referred as R-2).
BRIEF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION:
2. On 05.01.2020, when injured was coming from Jatari
Village to Suraj Mal, travelling by his motorcycle bearing Reg.
No. UP 81DL 5059 alongwith his cousin brother, suddenly UP
Roadways bus bearing Reg. no. UP 81BT 0436, being driven
speedily in a zig zag manner rammed into the motorcycle on
Alighar Palwal Road near Jattri Bamba, Kasba Road, on account
of which the motorcycle toppled and both of them fell on the
road and sustained injuries. FIR was registered by brother of one
of the injured Gaurav next day after the accident. Investigation
was undertaken. Statement of witnesses were recorded.
Mechanical Inspection of the vehicle was got done. Upon
conclusion of investigation, R-1, as driver of the offending
vehicle was charge sheeted for having caused harm upon the
person of injured due to speedy and rash driving on a public way.
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 2 of 41
Proceedings:
3. All the respondents appeared in response to notice of claim
petition and filed their replies respectively.
4. In WS filed on behalf of R-1 & R-2, it is stated that the
accident took place on account of negligence of injured who was
driving his motorbike recklessly and rammed into the bus head
on whereas the bus was being plied at a slow speed, adhering to
the traffic norms and therefore, there is no negligence on the part
of driver of the bus. Other general defences were taken.
Issues:
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 23.11.2022:
1) Whether this Tribunal has territorial
jurisdiction to deal with the present petition?
2) Whether the injured suffered grievous injury
in a road traffic accident on 05.01.2020 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
81BL 5059, being driven by R-1, owned by
R-2? OPP
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
4) Relief.
Evidence:
6. Matter was then listed for evidence. Injured Saurabh
Kumar tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He relied
upon following documents:
(i) MLC- Ex.PW1/1
(ii) Charge Sheet-Ex.PW1/2
(iii) Discharge Summary of Kailash Hospital-Ex.PW1/3
(iv) Discharge Summary of AIIMS Hospital-Ex.PW1/4
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 3 of 41
(v) OPD Card -Ex.PW1/5
(vi) Medical Bills-Ex.PW1/6
(vii) Disability Certificate-Ex.PW1/7
(viii) Educational document-Ex.PW1/8
(ix) ID card of coaching centers-Ex.PW1/9
(x) Rent Agreement-Ex.PW1/10
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for R-1 & 2.
7. Petitioner Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed for
Respondent Evidence.
8. R1W1 tendered her evidentiary affidavit as Ex.R1W1/A.
He relied upon his DL as Ex.R1W1/1. He was cross examined by
counsel for claimant.
9. Respondent Evidence was closed. Matter was then listed
for Final Arguments.
Final Arguments:
10. Final Arguments were advanced by counsel for claimant as
well as by counsel for respondent. Counsel for claimant argued
that the accident happened solely on account of the negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as deposed by the
eye witness/ injured examined on behalf of the claimant. He has
argued that there is no dispute about the involvement or
identification of the offending vehicle and the driver thereof. It is
argued that the injured has suffered 100% permanent disability as
per the medical certificate having rendered completely blind on
account of injuries sustained in the accident. It is stated that the
injured was earning about Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month
as Home Tutor and was also preparing for competitive
examination in aspiration of government job.
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 4 of 41
11. Counsel for UPSRTC also advanced arguments and stated
that the accident allegedly happened in UP and no documents
have been filed by the claimant in respect of his residence or any
work area in Delhi and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to
try the present case. He has also argued that the accident occurred
due to sole negligence of the motorcyclist of the bikers and
therefore, respondent are not liable to pay any compensation. The
compensation claim has also been termed to be exorbitant.
Discussion:
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to deal with
the present petition?
12. The aspect of Territorial Jurisdiction is governed by
Section 166(2) of MV Act as per which the application under
section 166(1) can be filed at the option of the claimant, to the
Claim Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which:
(i). the accident occurred,
(ii). within whose jurisdiction the claimant/petitioner
resides,
(iii) within whose jurisdiction the claimant/petitioner
carries on his business, or
(iv) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides.
13. To appreciate the legal position on this issue, it is pertinent
to refer to paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited,
(2016) 3 SCC 43:
"14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 5 of 41
benevolent provisions for the victims of accidents of
negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction
has to be interpreted consistent with the object of
facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper
technical approach in such matters can hardly be
appreciated.
15. As per Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/11, the address of claimant is
mentioned as Sriniwaspuri, Delhi. In view thereof as claimant's
address falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal and
hence, it is held that this court has territorial jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon this claim for compensation.
ISSUE NO.2
2) Whether the injured suffered grievous injury
in a road traffic accident on 05.01.2020 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP
81BL 5059, being driven by R-1, owned by
R-2? OPP
16. It is well settled that the proceedings before the Claims
Tribunal are in the nature of inquiry and the finding of rash and
negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle is to be
returned only at the touch stone of preponderance of
probabilities. {support drawn from the cases of Bimla Devi &
Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors, (2009) 13
SC 530, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 421 SC, and from the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as
2009 ACJ 287}.
17. PW-1 Saurabh Kumar deposed that he along with his
cousin brother were travelling from Gaddi Surajmal to Kasab
Jattari on 05.01.2020 at about 06.30 PM by accidental vehicle
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 6 of 41
when a UP Roadways bus bearing Reg. No. UP 81BT0436
coming from the opposite side, being driven by R-1, speedily and
rashly, rammed into the motorcycle forcefully because of which
bikers fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He deposed
that he rushed to Kailash Hospital and was then referred to
AIIMS Trauma Center due to his critical condition where MLC
was prepared. He also deposed that he remained hospitalized for
about 3 weeks in AIIMS Trauma Center post accident. During
cross examination by counsel for the respondent, he stated that
the motorcycle was being plied at a speed of 50-60 kilometer per
hour and that he was wearing helmet at the time of accident. He
stated that he became unconscious after the accident whereas
registration number of the bus was noted down by his brother. He
stated that he could not read the registration number of offending
vehicle at the time of accident. Counsel for the respondents has
chosen not to cross examine the witness on the aspect of mode
and manner of the accident. There is not even a suggestion given
to the injured that the motorcycle was being driven recklessly or
speedily or that the accident happened on account of sole
negligence on the part of injured person.
18. R-1 Rajkumar tendered evidentiary affidavit and deposed
that he has been employed with R-1 with an untainted record and
is an experienced driver. He also stated that the bus was being
driven by him in a slow speed as there were many potholes on
the road rather injured persons were reckless in driving, probably
intoxicated and rammed into the bus head on, causing the
accident. He asserted that there was no negligence on his part. He
also asserted that the injured was driving without helmet and was
not following the traffic rules. During cross examination, he
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 7 of 41
declined the suggestion that he was driving rashly and
negligently at the time of accident, however, admitted that
criminal proceedings are pending against him. He declined the
suggestion that he had fled from the scene of accident. He also
stated that he had informed about the accident to the officials of
R-2 but did not file any complaint in the police station regarding
the accident.
19. Neither the accident nor involvement of the offending
vehicle is disputed in this matter. FIR was registered next day
after the accident by brother of injured as both the bikers
sustained serious injuries after the accident. It is mentioned in the
FIR that the bus was being driven recklessly without adhering to
the lane discipline in a zig zag manner because of which it
rammed into the motorcycle coming from the opposite side. The
site plan forming part of charge sheet shows that the bus literally
transgressed into the lane meant for opposite traffic and crashed
into the motorcycle. The Mechanical Inspection Report of bus
also corroborates that damaged with bumper and grill whereas
the bike was heavily damaged due to collision. It is evident that
not only R-1 was speedily driving, he also did not adhere to the
lane discipline. Speedy Transgression of lane leading to accident
with vehicle plying in correct lane itself is reflective of reckless
driving. There is nothing on record to suggest that the
motorcyclist could have averted the accident or that they flouted
the traffic rules or were intoxicated and thus had no control over
their vehicle. It is evident that the accident occurred on account
of speedy and rash driving on the part of driver of the offending
vehicle. Issue No. 1 is hereby decided in favor of the petitioners
and against the respondents.
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 8 of 41
ISSUE NO. 3
"Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?
OPP"
"The determination of quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since
the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales"
{as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Concord of India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nirmala Devi
(1979 )4SCC 365}
20. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
inquiry into the claim to determine the compensation payable and
pass an award. Relevant portion of Section 168 MV Act is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.--On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the
provisions of section 162 may make an award determining the
amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be
paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify
the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them,
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.
.
.
.
21. “….Money cannot renew a physical frame that has been
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 9 of 41
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.
22. The assessment or grant of compensation is a small attempt
to render assistance to the injured to navigate through the hairpin
unanticipated sudden and traumatic turn in order to bring some
elbow space for him to move towards stability and normalcy to
the extent possible. The underlying principle remains thus to
make good the damage so far as possible as equivalent in money.
23. 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
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 10 of 41
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.”
24. It is also settled that the monetary assessment is a
methodology known to law as social and legal security to a
victim even though the nature of injuries and the individual
ramifications might vary in different cases, therefore, it is
understandable that one remedy cannot heal all. Further, the loss
is in the nature of deprivation and it is unlike a personal asset
with a price tag which can be simply awarded and therefore,
complete accuracy in making such assessment is not humanly
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 layMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 11 of 41
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”
25. 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 put
the party who has been injured.. in the same position as he
would have been if he had not sustained the wrong….”
26. 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.”
27. 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
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 12 of 41
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).
28. It is settled that an injured is required to be compensated
for his inability to lead full life, his inability to enjoy those
natural amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or
could have earned (support drawn from C. K. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376 as further referred
and relied in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and then in a recent
pronouncement of Sidram Vs Divisonal Manager United India
Insurance Company & Anr SLP (Civil) No.19277 of 2018).
29. 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)}.
30. 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.
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 13 of 41
31. The observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in the case of K. Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Company
Limited (2012) 12 SCC 274 provide valuable insights into the
factors to be weighed by the Tribunal for determination of
quantum of compensation, the relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
“10. It is noteworthy to state that an adjudicating authority, while
determining the quantum of compensation, has to keep in view the
sufferings of the injured person which would include his inability to
lead a full life, his incapacity to enjoy the normal amenities which he
would have enjoyed but for the injuries and his ability to earn as much
as he used to earn or could have earned. Hence, while computing
compensation the approach of the Tribunal or a court has to be broad-
based. Needless to say, it would involve some guesswork as there
cannot be any mathematical exactitude or a precise formula to
determine the quantum of compensation. In determination of
compensation the fundamental criterion of “just compensation”
should be inhered.”
32. 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,MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 14 of 41
discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in
life.”
33. The issue of determination of compensation in a personal
injury matter was extensively deliberated by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) Relevant extract
of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced hereunder for further
discussion:
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
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
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 15 of 41
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.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
34. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
(A) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
(i) Medical bills have been filed on record as Ex.PW1/6 (colly)
for a total sum of Rs. 75,000/-. Sundry / miscellaneous expenses
cannot be ruled out during the admission in the hospital and
subsequently also considering the nature of injury and disability.
Accordingly, injured is awarded Rs. 95,000/- (Rs. 75,000/- + Rs.
20,000/-) as actual amount spent on the treatment of injuries
sustained by him.
(B) Expenditure on Conveyance:
(i) The claimant has not filed any bills towards conveyance.
However, he suffered traumatic injury to the eyes resulting in
loss of vision in both eyes, along with a fracture in the left leg.
He was initially admitted to Kailash Hospital and later shifted to
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 16 of 41
AIIMS Trauma Center, Delhi, where he remained hospitalized
from 05.01.2020 to 26.01.2020. Given the serious nature of the
injuries and the need for travel between different hospitals along
with a support person, it is evident that considerable conveyance
expenses would have been incurred. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of conveyance
expenditure.
(C) Expenditure on Special Diet:
(i) The claimant has not filed any bills towards special diet.
However, he sustained traumatic injuries to the eyes resulting in
complete loss of vision in both eyes, along with a fracture in the
left leg. Such serious injuries, particularly those involving
surgical intervention and recovery from fractures, typically
require a special and nutritious diet to aid in healing and maintain
overall health. Considering the nature of the injuries a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of special diet.
(D) Expenditure towards services of Attendant:
(i) The claimant has not submitted any bills towards attendant
charges. However, considering the nature of injury and disability
permanent disability with loss of vision in both eyes, it is evident
that the claimant would have been completely dependent on
another person for mobility and daily care during the recovery
period. The severity of the injuries would have necessitated
constant support and supervision, especially during
hospitalization and post-discharge care. Therefore, it is
reasonable to infer that attendant services were required.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded under the head of
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 17 of 41
attendant charges.
(E) Loss of earning during the period of treatment:
(i) The claimant deposed that he was working as a home tutor
and earning between Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month.
However, any document has not been filed to support this
income. He further deposed that he was pursuing his B.Sc.
degree and preparing for various government job examinations,
for which he was attending coaching classes in Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi. In support of his statement, he has filed a copy of his
coaching institute ID card as Ex.PW1/9. He further stated that he
had been residing in Delhi for the past four years and relied upon
copy of Rent Agreement (Ex.PW1/10) to support thereof. As per
his Aadhaar Card, his residence is shown as Sriniwaspuri, Delhi.
To prove educational background, a copy of High School
Marksheet has been filed as Ex.PW1/8. His income is thus
assessed as per minimum wages for matriculate person as on the
date of accident in the State of NCT of Delhi which was Rs.
17,991/-.
(ii) The claimant sustained grievous injuries, including a
fracture of the left leg and traumatic injury to the eyes resulting
in complete loss of vision in both eyes. He underwent surgical
treatment and required long-term care and assistance. Given the
severity of the injuries and the impact on his mobility and vision,
it is reasonable to conclude that he would have been unable to
work or continue his coaching and tutoring activities for at least
six months following the accident. Hence, loss of income is
assessed for a period of six months.
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 18 of 41
Thus the income is calculated to be Rs. 17991 x 6 =
Rs.1,07,946/-
(F) Loss of future earning
(i) It is settled that a person is required to be compensated not
just for the physical injury but also for the loss he has suffered as
well as the loss which he might entail for the rest of his life on
account of those injuries which he sustained in the accident. This
necessarily means that he is required to be compensated for his
inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy normal
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the injury, his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
(Support drawn from the judgment titled as C. K. Subramania
Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3 SCC 64.
(ii) Claimant has suffered traumatic injury in both of his eyes
resulting complete loss of vision. A Unique Disability ID
(Ex.PW1/7) which certifies him as 100% visually disabled placed
on record. No challenge has been laid to the Disability
Assessment by any of the contesting counsels.
(iii) 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 beMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 19 of 41
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.”
(iv) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 20 of 41
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 impede 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.
(v) 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.
(vi) Hon’ble SC laid down certain guidelines for the Tribunal
to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify the loss for
the purpose of computing the compensation in the judgment of
Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this judgment for the
purpose of further discussion are reproduced hereunder:
“Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not,
with reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate
states that the injured has suffered permanent disability to an
extent of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as 45%MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 21 of 41
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 of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find
that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the
permanent disability, is approximately the same as the
percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of
compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 254 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298]
and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10
SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8 Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and, if so, the extent of such permanent
disability. This means that the Tribunal should consider andMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 22 of 41
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
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 asMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 23 of 41
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.”
(vii) 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 of
transport in hundreds of small towns all over the country.
The loss of one of the legs either to the marginal farmer or
the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the end of the road
insofar as their earning capacity is concerned. But in case of
a person engaged in some kind of desk work in an office, the
loss of a leg may not have the same effect. The loss of a leg
(or for that matter the loss of any limb) to anyone is bound to
have very traumatic effects on one’s personal, family or
social life but the loss of one of the legs to a person working
in the office would not interfere with his work/earning
capacity in the same degree as in the case of a marginal
farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-puller.
(viii) 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 toMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 24 of 41
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.
(ix) In the case of Sidram (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.
(x) The injured suffered a traumatic injury resulting in complete
loss of vision in both eyes, as corroborated by the Unique
Disability ID (Ex.PW1/7) which certifies him as 100% visually
disabled. He also sustained a fracture in the left leg, further
impairing his mobility. He has testified that he was working as a
home tutor earning between Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per
month and was simultaneously pursuing his B.Sc. while
preparing for competitive government exams, as shown by his
coaching center ID (Ex.PW/9). The complete loss of vision has
rendered him unfit not only to continue his existing work as a
tutor, which relies heavily on reading, writing, and student
interaction, but also significantly impairs his future employment
prospects, particularly in government services which generally
require minimum visual standards. It is noted that there areMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 25 of 41
advance technological support available which nonetheless allow
visually impaired to read, write and pursue further higher studies.
Although physical disability of injured has been assessed as
100% in terms of visual loss, hoping that injured is able to
overcome the setback of life, at the same time, considering his
young age, educational background, and the nature of his
occupation and aspirations, the functional disability with respect
to whole body and future earning capacity is assessed to be at
least 80%, as the loss of vision has substantially and permanently
incapacitated him from performing any work suited to his
qualifications and previous income profile.
(F1) Future Prospect:
(i) 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) (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 byMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 26 of 41
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.
.
.
(ii) 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 of the principles outlined in the
previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating capacity
of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected”.
(iii) PW-1 has filed his Aadhar Card as Ex.PW1/11 on record as
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 27 of 41
per which his date of birth is 16.05.1999, therefore, his age as on
the date of accident was about 20 years & 11 months. Since the
injured was below the age of 40 years (at the time of accident)
and was employed on a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case
of Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is
taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ”self-
employed or on a fixed salary”.
(F2) Multiplier:
(i) The Multiplier Method was coined by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008, decided on
15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in relation to
the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the uniformity
and consistency in determination of compensation payable in
fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant observations with
respect to the multiplier method in the abovementioned case read
as under:
“The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the loss of
dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of
the case and capitalizing the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier.
The choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased
(or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as
to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a
stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual
interest. In ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that
ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed-up over the
period for which the dependency is expected to last.”
(ii) The standard multiplier method was directed to be applied not
only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal accident case but
also to determine future loss of earning in serious disability
matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj Kumar (supra)}. In a
recent Judgment of Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar, AIR
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 28 of 41
2020 SUPREME COURT 4424, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
relied upon and reiterated the principles laid in various judgments
passed by it in the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy Vs.
Managing Director KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 and
held that stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and
pragmatic reality of life must be taken into account to determine
the impact of extent of disability upon the income generated
capacity of victim.
(iii) The income of the injured per annum as determined upon
appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A table of
multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. The appropriate multiplier, applicable in
this case would be 18 (for age upto 25 years).
(iv) 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. 17,991/- x 12) = Rs.2,15,892/-
(b) Future prospect (40% of Rs.2,15,892/-) = Rs. 86,357/-
__________________
(c) Total = Rs.3,02,249/-
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.3,02,249/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
80% (Rs.3,02,249/- X 18) = Rs. 43,52,386/-
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 29 of 41
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
35. Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests pecuniary damages are
designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be
ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages
are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and
physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life,
inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and
unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in
the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life
which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature
of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of
Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well,
primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured
and the effect of those upon his future life.
(i) Regarding non-pecuniary loss, following was stated in
Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):
“Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for pain and
suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is
taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being
interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus
there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a
provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries,
and indicating a bracket of damages into which a particular injury
will currently fall. The particular circumstances of the plaintiff,
including his age and any unusual deprivation he may suffer, is
reflected in the actual amount of the award.
(ii) In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India,
(1999) 6 SCC 667, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held thatMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 30 of 41
the object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff
compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered. The
Court further held that the elements of damage recognized by law
are divisible into two main groups: pecuniary and non-pecuniary
loss. While the pecuniary loss is capable of being arithmetically
worked out, the non- pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-
pecuniary loss is compensated in terms of money, not as a
substitute or replacement for other money, but as a substitute,
what McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it
is the best that a court can do.
(iii). In the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC
274, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that if a collection
of cases on the quantum of damages is to be useful, it must
necessarily be classified in such a way that comparable cases can
be grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still, it
is possible to make a broad classification which enables one to
bring comparable awards together. Inflation should be taken into
account while calculating damages.
The above two cases were also referred and relied in the case of
A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S. Anandha … vs Mohd. Ansari
& Ors. MAC App. 602/2015 decided on 17 August, 2017 by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
(iv) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads
involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the
loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to lead a
normal life and earn as much as he would, but for the injuries
sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for
compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 31 of 41
as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily
involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations,
however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis
of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective
sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of
disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are
various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss
(general damages) is assessed:
(A) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on account of
injuries:
(i) The mental and physical loss cannot always be
arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the
intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although
any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money,
however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money
can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme
Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi are relevant in the context:
“10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant
who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on
account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this
background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain
and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a
lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the
physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by
courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation
payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to
compensate such injury “so far as money can compensate” because
it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or
personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered
physical frame.
(ii) Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the
case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty
And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case ofMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 32 of 41
Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and
suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant
to the context are reproduced hereunder:
“113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as
observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be
mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes
physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep
mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant
trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely different
from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with
degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal
choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s mind,
whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe
limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity
(which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right
to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the
person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she
or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the
victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most
discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award
niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is
resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo Yadav
(supra)]
(iii) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh
(supra) observed as follows:
“2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or
for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic
computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of
realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates that there should be grant
of “just compensation”. Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of
law to determine “just compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor
a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of
the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question
whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must
provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of
suffering. Awards of compensation are not law’s doles. In a discourse
of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations
about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 33 of 41
individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human
dignity. (as relied in the case of Jagdish Vs. Mohan AIR 2018
SUPREME COURT 1347, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India).
(iv) The nature of injury and resulting disability must have
completely shattered the life of the injured. His dreams of
building a stable future through education and a government job
have been abruptly cut short. He has lost not only his present
source of income but also all future opportunities in his chosen
field. For a young person with ambition and hope, the sudden
loss of independence and career possibilities is deeply traumatic.
The impact on his mental and emotional well-being is severe and
permanent. Considering the extent of his disability, the emotional
suffering, and the irreversible loss of a self-reliant life, an amount
of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded as compensation for pain,
suffering, and trauma.
B. Loss of marriage prospect:
(i) In addition to losing his education and job opportunities, the
injury has also badly affected the chances of injured person of
getting marriage. He is still young, but because of his complete
loss of vision, it will be very difficult for him to find a life
partner. In our society, people usually look for someone who can
earn and take care of a family, and with this kind of permanent
disability, many families may not agree to a match. He will also
be dependent on others for the rest of his life, which makes it
even harder. Keeping all this in mind, coupled with emotional
and psychological pain that comes with it, an amount of
Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded to the claimant for loss of marriage
prospects.
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 34 of 41
(C) Loss of amenities of life:
(i) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to
enjoy the basis 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. Injured has been rendered
incapacitated to enjoy the beauty of outside world. He would not
be able to see his loved ones. Loss of vision would obviously
impact his free unhindered mobility as well. It is evident that he
would not be able to live a wholesome life and enjoy the
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries
suffered by him. An amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded towards
loss of amenities.
36. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : - Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : As Rs. 95,000/-
discussed above.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : As Rs. 50,000/-
discussed above.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : As Rs.50,000/-
discussed above.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.1,07,946/-
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 35 of 41
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 80%
capacity in relation to disability: As
already discuss above.
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
(viii) Loss of future income: Rs. 43,52,386/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Damages for pain, suffering and Rs. 10,00,000/-
trauma on account of injuries:
(ii) Loss of amenities of life Rs. 2,00,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration : NA
(v) Loss of marriage prospects : Rs. 5,00,000/-
(vi) Future medical expenses NA
(vii) Loss of expectation of life NA
Total Compensation Rs.64,05,332/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.64,05,332/-
Interest As directed
below
37. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan &
Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no.
433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of
interest:
“25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the
applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding
principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs.
Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the
following was held while interpreting section 171 of the
MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P.
Mohanty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant, in support of his contentions. No ratio
has been laid down in any of the decisions in regard
to the rate of interest and the rate of interest was
awarded on the amount of compensation as a matter
of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must beMACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 36 of 41
just and reasonable depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and taking all relevant
factors including inflation, change of economy,
policy being adopted by Reserve Bank of India from
time to time, how long the case is pending,
permanent injuries suffered by the victim, enormity
of suffering, loss of future income, loss of
enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of
interest is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act
1988. Varying rates of interest are being awarded by
Tribunals, High Courts and the Supreme Court.
Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not
specifically plead for the same as it is consequential
in the eye of the law. Interest is compensation for
forbearance or detention of money and that interest
being awarded to a party only for being kept out of
the money which ought to have been paid to him.
No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of
interest be fixed to have a general application in
motor accident provision under Section 171 giving
discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other
matters, awarding of interest depends upon the
statutory provisions mercantile usage and doctrine
of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec. 4-A(3) of
Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in the
matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the
interest at different rates depending upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my
opinion, there cannot be any hard and fast rule in
awarding interest and the award of interest is solely
on the discretion of the Tribunal of the High Court
as indicated above.”
38. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including in the
case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27
July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of
SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per
annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case.
39. The total compensation is Rs.64,05,332/- which shall be
payable to the claimant along with to simple interest @9% p.a.
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 37 of 41
from the date of filing of DAR till actual realization of Award
amount/compensation.
LIABILITY
40. As discussed above, R-1 driver drove the vehicle rashly
and negligently which caused the accident. R-2 /UPSRTC owned
the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the entire liability to pay
compensation would be upon R-1 driver as well as R-2 which
had authorised and deputed R-1 to drive the vehicle on the date
of accident. Therefore, such principal award
amount/compensation will be payable by the R-1/ driver & R-2/
UPSRTC offending vehicle with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from
the date of filing of petition till 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).
41. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of
India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT FUND PARKING, A/c
No. 00000042706870765 IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR
code 110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with
calculation of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP).
42. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003
titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 38 of 41
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made
effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018
also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one
of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank
of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in
accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi.
Release of Amount
43. Out of total settlement amount Rs. Rs. 50,00,000/- along
with proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest is
kept in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 20,000/- each. Remaining
amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be
released in his bank account near his place of residence.
44. The following directions are also given to the bank for
compliance:
(a) 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.
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank
in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR
number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity
amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimant.
(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
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 39 of 41
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.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 05.01.2020
2 Name of injured Saurabh Kumar
3 Age of the injured 20 years and 11 months.
4 Occupation of the Not proved
injured
5 Income of the injured Minimum wages, applicable
for matriculate person in
NCT of Delhi at the time of
accident.
6 Nature injury Grievous injury and disability
with respect to complete loss
of vision.
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 40 of 41
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury
disability?
45. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Concerned
Criminal Court.
Announced in the open court
on 29.04.2025
Shelly Arora
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
29.04.2025
MACT No. 868/2021 Saurabh Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page No. 41 of 41
[ad_1]
Source link