Delhi District Court
Rajendra Kr Gupta vs Jai Prakash on 19 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 779/2019
FIR no. 189/2019
PS: Kavi Nagar
U/s 279/338 IPC
CNR No.DLSE01- 007512-2019
Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors.
1. Rajendra Kumar Gupta
S/o Sh. Ramanand Aggarwal
R/o G-253, Govindpuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
...Claimants/LRs of deceased
Versus
1. Jai Prakash
S/o Nanak Chand
R/o T-339, Govindpuram
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Driver / R-1
2. Smt. Rajendri Devinder
W/o Sh. Rajveer Singh
R/o D-42, Govind Bihar, Govindpuram
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 1 of 22
..... Owner/ R-1
3. M/s Tata AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
4th Floor, DLF Tower-B, Delhi-110025
..... Insurance Company/R-3
Date of accident : 20.01.2019
Date of filing of petition : 23.09.2019
Date of Decision : 19.05.2025
AWARD
1. Claim Petition under Section 166 and 140 M.V. Act was
filed on 23.09.2019 by Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (hereinafter
called the claimant) on account of injury sustained by him in an
accident which took place on 20.01.2019 allegedly due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP14BD 1448 (hereinafter
referred as Offending Vehicle), driven by Sh. Jai Prakash
(hereinafter called R-1), owned by Smt. Rajendri Devinder
(hereinafter called R-2) and insured with M/s Tata AIG Gen. Ins.
Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred as R-3).
BRIEF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION:
2. On 20.01.2019 at about 03.00 PM, while petitioner was
driving back home on his scooty, while passing through road no.1
opposite DDPS School, Govindpuram, suddenly, speedily and
rashly driven Alto Car bearing Reg. No. UP14BD 1448, driven
from the opposite side, rammed into the scooty causing serious
injuries on the body of petitioner. Petitioner was rushed to nearby
Yashoda Hospital, Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad, in a PCR vehicle.
FIR was registered. Investigation was undertaken. R-1 as driver
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 2 of 22
of the Alto Car was charge sheeted for causing injuries upon
petitioners due to rash and negligent driving of Alto Car on a
public way. A sum of Rs. 7 lakh along with interest has been
sought as compensation by the petitioner.
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 submitted that
R-1 as driver of the Alto Car had parked his vehicle on the road
side and visited a temple for 10 minutes and when he came back,
he saw white colour Activa Scooty, having rammed into his car
from the front side. It is alleged that the claimant, himself hit a
stationary vehicle due to self negligence and sustained injuries.
5. In the Written Statement filed by insurance company, the
genuineness of validity of insurance policy is not disputed. It is
stated that the offending vehicle was being driven by a minor and
not by R-1 at the time of accident. Other general defences were
taken.
Issues:
6. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 06.02.2020:
1) Whether the injured suffered injury in a road
traffic accident on 20.01.2019 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 14BD 1448
driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3 ? OPP.
2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 3 of 22
3) Relief.
Evidence:
7. Matter was then listed for evidence. Injured Sh. Rajender
Kumar Gupta tendered his evidentiary affidavit as Ex.PW1/1. He
relied upon following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/A – Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner.
(ii) Mark A- Copy of ITR of petitioner for assessment year 2017-
2018 & 2018-2019
(iii) Ex.PW1/C- Criminal Case Records
(iv) Ex.PW1/D- Discharge Summary with treatment records
(v) Ex.PW1/E- Medical Bills.
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for R-1 & 2 as well
as counsel for Insurance Company.
8. No other witness was examined on behalf of claimant and
thus PE was closed. No evidence was led by by any of the
Respondents thus RE was also closed. Matter was then listed for
Final Arguments.
Final Arguments:
9. Final Arguments were advanced by counsel for claimant as
well as counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. Counsel for
claimant argued that the accident happened solely on account of
reckless driving 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 further deposed that there is no dispute about
the involvement or identification of the offending vehicle and the
driver thereof. He further submitted that injured suffered
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 4 of 22
physically, mentally, emotionally and financially on account of
accident and therefore, must be suitably awarded the
compensation.
10. Counsel for Insurance Company has fairly conceded that
offending vehicle had valid insurance policy as on the date of
accident. She asserted that injured has not suffered any financial
loss considering that his business was running despite being
injured in the accident. Further, all his medical treatment bills
were being paid / reimbursed by medi-claim policy.
Discussion:
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether the injured suffered injury in a road
traffic accident on 20.01.2019 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 14BD 1448
driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured with
R-3 ? OPP.
11. 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}.
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 5 of 22
12. Injured examined himself as a witness and deposed about
the mode and manner of the accident. He was extensively cross
examined by the counsels of respondents respectively. During
cross examination by counsel for R-1 & R-2, he stated that he
was commuting from Ghaziabad to Govindpuram when he met
with an accident. He declined the suggestion that he ended up
colliding with the parked offending vehicle at the time of
accident and does not even possess any driving license. He
clarified that he was riding scooty in left lane of the road while
site of accident was a two -way lane and the offending vehicle
was coming from the opposite side and rammed into his vehicle.
He declined the suggestion that he was plying the scooty on the
wrong side and the accident happened on account of his own
negligence.
13. During cross examination by counsel for Insurance
company, he admitted that he did not make any PCR call after
the accident rather his son Piyush Gupta had called the PCR,
however, that he has not placed on record any document to
support that assertion. He also admitted that FIR was got lodged
upon the complaint of his son Piyush Gupta, admitting the
manner of accident and other details mentioned in the FIR
pertaining to the accident as narrated by his son to the police at
the time of lodging of FIR, as true and correct. He admitted that
he was unable to confirm as to who was driving the car at the
time of accident as he had fallen far away at the time of accident.
He also stated that someone from the public called his son, who
arrived at the spot after 15-20 minutes after the accident. He
admitted that he has not placed on record the seizure memo as
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 6 of 22
part of charge sheet. He also admitted that he had a mediclaim
insurance with United India Insurance Co. Ltd, however, could
not clarify about the amount already received thereunder. He
admitted that he did not file the computation sheet with the
photocopy of the ITR for the AY. 2017-2018 & 2018-19. He
stated that he was Proprietor of a grocery store being run with the
name Laxmi Trading Company in Govindpuram. He admitted
that he was a permanent resident of Ghaziabad. He also clarified
that he has no employee working under him. He also stated that
he filed ITR pertaining to the Assessment Year 2019-20 till
2023-2024 however has not placed the same on record. He also
stated that he has closed the shop in the year 2023, however, has
not placed on record any document to substantiate that and now
sit in his son’s shop near his house. He declined the suggestion
that he has been filing the ITR as his shop still running and that
his working hours have not been reduced therefore, he has not
suffered any loss of revenue. He declined the suggestion that he
has filed a false and exaggerated claim.
14. The accident took place on 20.01.2019, while the
complaint was handed over by Piyush Gupta, Son of injured on
22.01.2019 and FIR was registered on the said complaint. The
complaint made by Piyush Gupta (son of injured) mentions
about the basic details about the accident including identification
of the offending vehicle alleging speedy and rash driving of the
said vehicle to be the cause of the accident which rammed into
the scooty driven by his father from the front / opposite side. As
per the Mechanical Inspection Report filed as part of charge
sheet, the front portion of Alto Car was found damaged on
account of accidental impact. It is clarified by PW-1 that he was
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 7 of 22
driving on the left side of the road while the offending vehicle
was being driven from the opposite side presumably in the other
lane on a two lane road and therefore, it is likely that the
offending vehicle either transgressed or was being driven on a
wrong side, causing the accident. There is no evidence that there
was a divider between the two lanes of the road as per the site
plan. It is contended by R-1 that his vehicle was parked on one
side of the road when it was hit, however, that does not explain
as to how its frontal portion has been damaged in the accident
considering that it should have been parked in the same direction
in which scooty was being plied and therefore, its back should
have been damaged which is not the case. Further, R-1 has not
affirmed what he contended and has chosen not to be cross
examined on the aspect, thereby, an adverse inference can be
drawn against him for not testifying that he was driving as per the
traffic norms and regulations. Further, his counsel has cross
examined the injured, however, has not been able to elicit any
material contradiction to cast doubt on the testimony of claimant.
It is noted that there is no denial on the part of R-1 that the
accident did not happen with the vehicle being driven by him.
Qua the contention raised by R-3 / Insurance Company that the
offending vehicle was being driven by a minor, no evidence has
been led on the aspect.
15. The entirety of the evidence discussed points to the
inescapable conclusion that the accident resulted from the speedy
and rash driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In light of
the aforementioned findings, Issue No. 1 is hereby decided in
favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 8 of 22
ISSUE NO.2
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom ?
OPP.
16. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount
of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Same 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.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of
the award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any
case within a period of fifteen days from the date of the
award.
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person
who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award
shall, within thirty days of the date of announcing the award
by the ClaimsTribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner
as the Claims Tribunal may direct.
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 9 of 22
17. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019)
18. The basic principle 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. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
19. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the
compensation must be “just” and it cannot be a
bonanza; not a source of profit but the same should not
be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have a duty to
weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of
compensation, which should be just. What would be
“just” compensation is a vexed question. There can be
no golden rule applicable to all cases for measuring the
value of human life or a limb. Measure of damages
cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts
and circumstances, and attending peculiar or specialMACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 10 of 22
features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for
assessing compensation has to be considered in the
background of “just” compensation which is the pivotal
consideration. Though by use of the expression “which
appears to it to be just”, a wide discretion is vested in
the Tribunal, the determination has to be rational, to be
done by a judicious approach and not the outcome of
whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. …”
20. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
“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.” Further, Insurance Company in its RE,
examined its Legal Manager Sh Sayok Bandyopadhyay
as R2W1. Such witness R2W1 tendered his
examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A
and relied upon various documents including DAR,
copy of Insurance Policy, Verification Report datedMACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 11 of 22
20.03.2020 issued by Reliance Gen. Ins. Co and copy
of complaint dated 06.01.2021 given to DCP, Sarita
Vihar. He was then cross examined by LAC for R1.
21. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were
enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Following observations are relevant in the context:
“40.General principles relating to compensation in
injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the
Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be
just, which means that compensation should, to the
extent possible, fully and adequately restore the
claimant to the position prior to the accident. The
object of awarding damages is to make good the loss
suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can
do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The
court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any
speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with
reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to
lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the
injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer
v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970
SC 376] , R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P)
Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and
Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 : (1970) 2 WLR 50
: (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 12 of 22
(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 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.
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 13 of 22
22. The abovesaid principles have been placed reliance upon
in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional
Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of
SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
23. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of
judgments that “just compensation” should include all elements
that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or
he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no
amount of money or other material compensation can erase the
trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious
accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary
compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society
assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the
victims who have to face their lives.
24. In the following paragraphs, the compensation to be
awarded is calculated under relevant heads:
25. PW-1, the injured, deposed that he was running his own
grocery shop under the name and style of Laxmi Trading
Company at Govindpuram, Ghaziabad. It was a sole
proprietorship business. In support of his statement, he has relied
upon the ITRs filed by him for the Assessment Years (AY) 2017-
18 and 2018-19. As per AY 2017-18, his gross income was Rs.
3,55,564/- and for 2018-19, it was Rs. 2,98,498/-. There is a
noticeable difference of approximately Rs. 50,000/- between the
two ITRs. The counsel for the insurance company disputed the
variation in income, arguing that such a difference casts doubt on
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 14 of 22
the accuracy and consistency of the declared income.
26. It is settled that the Income Tax Return (ITR) is a statutory
document, containing a declaration of income by the taxpayer,
and is a credible source for determining the income of the
individual. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case of in Malarvizhi & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors. (AIR 2020 SC 90) as also relied upon in the case of Smt.
Anjali & Ors. Vs. Lokendra Rathor 2022 Live Law (1012) as
under:
9. The Tribunal and the High Court both committed
grave error while estimating the deceased’s income
by disregarding the Income Tax Return of the
Deceased. The appellants had filed the Income Tax
Return (2009- 2010) of the deceased, which reflects
the deceased’s annual income to be Rs.1,18,261/-,
approx. Rs.9,855/- per month. This Court in
Malarvizhi & Ors. (Supra) has reaffirmed that the
Income Tax Return is a statutory document on
which reliance be placed, where available, for
computation of annual income. In Malarvizhi
(Supra), this Court has laid as under:
“10. …We are in agreement with the High Court
that the determination must proceed on the basis of
the income tax return, where available. The income
tax return is a statutory document on which reliance
may be placed to determine the annual income of
the deceased.”
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 15 of 22
27. Income tax return filed as certified true copies in evidence
in support of assessment of annual income of deceased form a
credible basis thereof and must be considered as valid documents
for quantification of earnings of deceased for the purpose of
computation of the compensation in accident cases.
28. Considering the gross income declared in the Assessment
Year 2017-18 and the Assessment Year 2018-19, the total
income for the two years is Rs. 3,55,564/- + Rs. 2,98,498/- = Rs.
6,54,062/-. Taking the average of these two amounts, the average
annual income comes out to Rs. 3,27,031/-. To compute the
monthly income based on this average annual income, the
amount is divided by 12, resulting in Rs. 27,252/- as the monthly
income of the injured. Thus, monthly income of injured is
calculated as Rs. 27,252/-, based on the average of the two ITRs
for the two financial years immediately preceding the incident.
29. As per Discharge Summary of Yashoda Hospital, injured
remained hospitalised for four days between 20.01.2019 to
24.01.2019. He was diagnosed with displaced fracture left distal
femur with button holing of proximal femur through rectus
femoris and deep fascia with punctured wound anterior aspect of
leg. He also underwent operative procedure during
hospitalisation.
30. Apart from this injured also took OPD treatment from
different clinics for successive 4-5 months. Such OPD
prescriptions for the month of May, June and July 2019 has been
filed on record which give an inference that injured was actively
taking treatments post accident. In view of the documents filed
on record, it is presumed that the injured would not have been
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 16 of 22
able to resume his work for making a living for about 4 months.
As such, his loss of income is calculated to be Rs. 27,252/- x 4 =
Rs.1,09,008/-.
31. Claimant has placed on record medical bills as Ex.PW1/E
(colly); out of which there is a photocopy of final bill amounting
to Rs. 1,97,866/- and three other miscllaneous bills amounting to
Rs. 1,396/-. The bill amounting to Rs. 1,97,866/- is provisional in
nature. Counsel for claimant, upon specific query by Tribunal
also conceded that the entire medical expense was covered under
the health insurance scheme, however, he argued that same
cannot be deducted from the compensation amount. Counsel for
claimant relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High
Court in case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs.
Dolly Satish Gandhi & Anr. First Appeal No. 1344 of 2014 in
support of his contention.
32. Counsel for insurance company, on the other hand,
contended that all the medical bills have been duly reimbursed by
claimant through medi-claim policy and as such he cannot be
compensated twice for the expenditure which he has already been
reimbursed from the medi -claim policy. She relied upon
judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Patricia Jean
Mahajan and Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 281 in support of her
contention.
33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 281, while
examining the question of deductibility of benefits received
under various insurance schemes in the context of compensation
under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically noted the distinction
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 17 of 22
between pecuniary advantages which are independent of the
accident and those which arise directly out of the same. His
Lordship observed that where insurance proceeds are payable
regardless of the accident, such amounts are not liable for
deduction. However, in contrast, where the insurance proceeds
are paid specifically due to the occurrence of an accident, such as
Mediclaim reimbursements are liable for deduction from the
awarded compensation. The relevant portion is reproduced
hereinbelow for ready reference:
“Thus it would not include that which the
claimant receives on account of other forms of deaths,
which he would have received even apart from accidental
death. Thus, such pecuniary advantage would have no
correlation to the accidental death for which compensation
is computed. Any amount received or receivable not only
on account of the accidental death but that which would
have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be
construed to be the “pecuniary advantage” liable for
deduction. However, where the employer insures his
employee, as against injury or death arising out of an
accident, any amount received out of such insurance on
the happening of such incident may be an amount liable
for deduction. However, our legislature has taken note of
such contingency through the proviso of Section 95.
Under it the liability of the insurer is excluded in respect
of injury or death, arising out of and in the course of
employment of an employee.”
34. It is thus concluded that the claimant cannot be permitted
to receive the benefit of reimbursement for medical expenditure
from two distinct sources for the same accident-related treatment.
35. Award amount is calculated as under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : – Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : Already Nil
reimbursed under medi-claim.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : No Rs. 15,000/-
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 18 of 22
prescription filed by the claimant
towards expenditure for conveyance.
However, considering the nature of
injuries, compensation towards
conveyance is granted by guess work.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : There Rs.20,000/-
is no prescription for special diet,
however, considering the nature of
injury, at least during period of recovery,
he would have required to consume
nutritious diet for prompt recovery.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : Rs.20,000/-
It is settled that even in the absence of
documentary proof, compensation for
attendant’s charges is to be given even if
services were rendered by family
members. He remained hospitalized for 3
days.
(v) Loss of income : as stated above: Rs.1,09,008/-
Rs. 27,252/-×4
(vi) Cost of artificial limbs (if NA
applicable) :
(vii) Any other loss / expenditure : NA
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(I) Compensation of mental and Rs.20,000/-
physical shock : The nature of injuries
are grievous. Injured would have
suffered trauma on account of accident.
(ii) Pain and suffering : Compensation Rs. 20,000/-
for pain and suffering is to be awarded
keeping in mind the nature of injuries
suffered by the petitioner.
(iii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.10,000/-
Total Compensation Rs.2,14,008/-
Deduction, if any, Nil
Total Compensation after deduction Rs.2,04,008/-
Interest As stated below
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 19 of 22
Interest:
36. 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).
Liability:-
37. Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident and has not raised any
statutory defence. It has already been held that accident occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle. It
is settled that Insurance Company is responsible to indemnify
owner / insured for vicarious liability incurred by tort feaser.
Therefore, such principal award amount/compensation will be
payable by the insurance company of offending vehicle with
simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim
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).
38. 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
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 20 of 22
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.
Release of award amount
Whole award amount shall be released in his bank
account near his place of residence.
39. 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. Claimant is also
directed to place on record Aahdar Card and PAN Card, if not
already filed.
Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex
40. 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,
MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 21 of 22
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 20.01.2019
2 Name of injured Rajender Kumar Gupta
3 Age of the injured 55 years
4 Occupation of the Self employed
injured
5 Income of the injured As per ITR
6 Nature injury Grievous
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury
disability?
41. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Concerned
Criminal Court. Digitally signed
by SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
Date:
ARORA 2025.05.19
Announced in the open court 16:20:44
+0530on 19.05.2025
Shelly Arora
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
19.05.2025MACT No. 779/2019 Rajender Kumar Gupta Vs. Jai Prakash & Ors. Page No. 22 of 22
[ad_1]
Source link