Delhi District Court
Major Singh vs Rajat on 26 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF HARVINDER SINGH, DISTRICT
JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER : MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01,(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
AWARD/JUDGMENT
MACT Case No.393/2021
CNR No. DLWT010075602021
Major Singh
S/o Sh. Dalip Singh
R/o C-155/2, Chinyot Basti,
Nabi Karim, Paharganj, Delhi-110055
................petitioner
Versus
1. Rajat (Driver)
S/o Sh. Sanjay
R/o Plot no. 1 A Phase2,
Vikas Nagar Uttam Nagar,
West Delhi-110059
2. Sharvan Singh (Owner)
S/o Sh. Vir Singh
R/o Flat No. 37, E Block,
Vikas Puri, Delhi-110018
3. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.(Insurer)
105, 1st Floor, DDA-2, District Center,
Janakpuri, Delhi-110058.
................respondents
Date of Institution : 11.10.2021 Date of final arguments : 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2025 Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors. MACT No.393/2021 Page No.1 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:53:41 +0530 FORM-XVII
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
1. Date of the accident 09.04.2021
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First N.A.
Accident Report (FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the N.A.
victim(s)
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from N.A.
the Driver
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from N.A.
the Owner
6. Date of filing of the Form-V- N.A.
Interim Accident Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and N.A.
Form-VIB from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII- 11.10.2021
Detailed Accident Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or Incident in question took
deficiency on the part of the place on 09.04.2021 and
Investigating Officer? If so, the DAR was filed only
whether any action/direction on 11.10.2021
warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Date not mentioned
Designated Officer by the
Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer Yes
of the Insurance Company
submitted his report within 30
days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction
warranted?
13. Date of response of the Date not mentioned
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.2 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:53:47 +0530
claimant(s) to the offer of the
Insurance Company
14. Date of the award 26.05.2025
15. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were directed to open
savings bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
16. Date of order by which 11.10.2021
claimant(s) was/were directed to
open savings bank account(s)
near his place of residence and
produce PAN Card and Aadhaar
Card and the direction to the
bank not issue any cheque
book/debit card to the claimant(s)
and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook
17. Date on which the claimant(s) 29.04.2025
produced the passbook of their
savings bank account near the
place of their residence along
with the endorsement, PAN Card
and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address C-155/2, Chinyot Basti,
of the claimant(s) Nabi Karim, Paharganj,
Delhi-110055
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings Yes
bank account(s) is near his place
of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) Yes
was/were examined at the time of
passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition?
FACTUAL POSITION & PLEADINGS
1. Vide this judgment/award, this Tribunal shall decide
petition/DAR filed for compensation on account of the injuries
sustained by injured Major Singh in a road vehicular accident
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.3 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:53:51 +0530
which took place on 09.04.2021 at about 20:32 at IMA Medico
House in front of D Block, Janakpuri, Delhi.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER SIDE
2.1 Succinctly, the case put forth vide petition is that on
09.04.2021, injured was coming back to his home situated at
Paharganj, New Delhi from Dwarka on two wheeler (Honda
Activa) scooty bearing registration no. DL6SAW8231. At about
7:15 pm, when he reached at IMA Medico House D Block,
Janakpuri, Delhi, in the meantime, one Car bearing registration
No. DL2CAV7716 came in very high speed, in rash manner and
in negligent manner from behind. It hit the injured. Due to same,
he sustained grievous injuries. After the incident, injured was
shifted to DDU Hospital, Hari nagar, New Delhi. Thereafter, he
was shifted to MG City Hospital, Saroj Medical Institute at
Sector 19, Rohini, Delhi and Pentamed Hospital. He is still under
treatment. Incident took place due to rash and negligent driving
of the vehicle by respondent no.1. FIR No.150/2021 under
Section 279/338 IPC PS Hari Nagar was registered against
respondent no.1.
2.2 It is claimed that the injured/claimant was doing the
business of Furniture and used to earn Rs.4,71,300/- per annum
at the time of incident. The respondent no.01 being driver,
respondent no.02 being owner and respondent no.3 being insurer
of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to petitioner.
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS
3. Notice of the application/DAR was issued to the
respondents, respondents appeared and filed their written
statements/replies to the present application/petition/DAR.
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.4 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:53:53 +0530
RESPONSE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.01 & 02.
4. In gist, the response of respondent no.01 & 02 as
discernible from their reply/written statement is that petitioner
has concealed material facts from the Tribunal. No incident has
taken place with vehicle of respondent no.1 & 2. They have been
falsely implicated in the present case. With these averments,
respondent no.01 & 02 have prayed for dismissal of petition.
RESPONSE OF RESPONDENT NO.03
5. Succinctly, the response of respondent no.03 as
discernible from its written statement/reply is that vehicle
bearing registration no. DL2CAV7716 was insured with it vide
policy no.0158822522 valid from 27.09.2020 to 26.09.2021 in
the name of respondent no.2. Respondent Insurance company
made legal offer of Rs.1,12,724/- in this case.
ISSUES
6.1 After completion of pleadings, on 28.04.2022, Ld.
Scholar Predecessor of this Tribunal framed following issues : –
(i) Whether the injured Major Singh suffered injuries
in the accident that took place on 09.04.2021 at about
8:32 pm due to rash and negligent driving of offending
vehicle bearing registration number DL2CAV7716 by
the respondent no.01 Sh. Rajat, being owned by the
respondent no.2 Sh. Sarwan Singh and insured with the
respondent no.3/OPP.
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation,
if yes, at what amount and from whom? OPP
(iii) Relief.
6.2 Thereafter, matter was fixed for evidence of
petitioner side.
PETITIONER SIDE EVIDENCE
7.1 The petitioner/claimant/injured examined himself as
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.5 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:53:55 +0530
PW1 to establish his claim. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating and supporting the contents of his
application/petition/DAR. He relied upon photocopy of his
Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1, photocopies of discharge summaries
Mark A, photocopies of medical bills Mark B, computer
generated ITR for the assessment year 2018-19, 2020-21 and
2021-22 Ex.PW1/2, photocopy of his PAN Card Mark C, his
photograph Ex.PW1/3, photocopy of visiting Card Mark D and
DAR Ex.PW1/5 in his evidence. He was examined, cross-
examined and discharged.
7.2 The petitioner has also examined attendant Sh.
Mohd. Aakil as PW-2. PW-2 in gist has deposed that on
24.04.2021, Major Singh engaged him as attendant to look after
him. He employed him for two years. He paid him Rs.11,000/- to
Rs.12,000/- per month for the same. His work was to assist
injured Major Singh to go to washroom/toilets, bath, change
cloths and in day to day activities. He was examined, cross-
examined and was discharged.
7.3 Petitioner has also examined Sh. Vikrant, Inspector
from Income Tax Department as PW-3. PW-3 has brought on
record the ITRs of Sh. Major Singh having PAN Number
ASAPS1488A filed for the financial years 2018-19 to 2021-2022
as Ex.PW3/1. He also filed letter of their Income Tax Officer Sh.
Neeraj Malik as Ex.PW3/2 on record. PW-3 deposed that as per
their records, the ITR filed by assessee for assessment year 2019-
2020 is invalid. He was examined, cross-examined and was
discharged.
7.4 Petitioner has also examined Sh. Deepak Sethi,
Manager from Pentamed Hospital as PW-4. PW-4 has brought on
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.6 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:53:57 +0530
record the attested records of admission of patient S. Major
Singh, his treatment & bills Ex.PW4/1, bills of injured from
26.11.2021 to 01.12.2021 Ex.PW4/2, bills from 28.01.2022 to
03.02.2022 Ex.PW4/3, bills from 06.03.2022 to 10.03.2022
Ex.PW4/4, bills from 07.05.2022 to 11.05.2022 Ex.PW4/5 in his
evidence. He was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
7.5 Petitioner also examined Dr. Pankaj Anand, Sr.
Consultant, Orthopedics in Pentamed Hospital & Tirath Ram
Hospital, Delhi as PW-5. PW-5 has deposed that patient Major
Singh is under their continuous treatment at Pentamed Hospital.
He is a case of polytrauma along with compound fracture left
femur along with implant in SITU and further infection at the
site. He is also case of foot drop left side. He needs to be
operated for both these conditions and the approximate expenses
for both the surgeries would be around 4- 4.5 lakhs as per his
estimate. He has given the certificate to that effect to the injured
as Ex.PW5/A. He was examined, cross-examined and was
discharged.
7.6 Petitioner also examined Dr. Sujata Roshan,
Professor in Neurology Department of G.B. Pant Institute, New
Delhi as PW-6. PW-6 in gist has deposed that patient Major
Singh was found to be suffering from locomotive disability of
60% of left lower limb due to left foot drop further due to head
injury as patient is a case of polytrauma with EDH with bilateral
femur fracture and nerve injury in the left lower limb (sciatic
nerve/left lumber plexus involvement). The same was found to
be temporary in nature and likely to improve. PW-6 exhibited the
copy of said report as Ex.PW6/A in her evidence.
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.7 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:53:59 +0530
RESPONDENT SIDE EVIDENCE
8. No evidence has been led by the respondent side.
FINAL ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS/CONTENTIONS
9.1 Submissions/contentions of the petitioner side are
that the petitioner side has positively proved that the incident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent
no.01. The injured was about 66 years of age at the time of
accident. He was doing the business of Furniture and used to earn
Rs.4,71,300/- per annum at the time of incident. The has suffered
major disabilities in this matter and since four years have already
passed since the date of incident, therefore, petitioner/injured
cannot wait for the assessment of permanent disability due to
financial constraints. Ld. Counsels for petitioner has also relied
upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi passed in
matter of “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagat & ors.”
MAC. APP No. 55/2012 & CM APPL. 22764/2018 & CM
APPL. 39127/2018 decided on 15.04.2024 and of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in matter of “K. s. Muralidhar vs. R.
Subbulakshmi & Anr.” arising out of SLP (C) No.18337/2021 in
support of their contentions. Award may be passed by this
Tribunal as per entitlement/claim of applicant/injured.
9.2 Submissions/contentions of the respondent no.03
Insurance Company are that the petitioner/claimant has failed to
prove that incident took place due to rash and negligent driving
of respondent no.01/driver. ITR of injured for assessment year
2019-20 was invalid. Injured has not suffered any permanent
disability and his situation would improve with surgeries as is
deposed by doctors. With these main contentions, respondent
no.03 has prayed for grant of only reasonable compensation.
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.8 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:03 +0530
9.3 No arguments were addressed by respondent no.1 &
2 despite number of opportunities.
ANALYSIS/FINDINGS ON ISSUES
Issue No.(1) : Whether the injured Major Singh
suffered injuries in the accident that took place on
09.04.2021 at about 8:32 pm due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle bearing registration
number DL2CAV7716 by the respondent no.01 Sh.
Rajat, being owned by the respondent no.2 Sh. Sarwan
Singh and insured with the respondent no.3/OPP.
10.1 Before adverting to the facts of the present petition
for deciding the above issue, at the very outset, it would be
apposite to note here that the procedure followed by an accident
claim tribunal is similar to what is followed by a civil Court. In
civil matters the facts are required to be established by way of
preponderance of probabilities only and not by strict rules of
evidence or beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal
prosecution. The burden of proof in a civil case is not as heavy
as it is in a criminal case and in a claim petition under The Motor
Vehicles Act, this burden is even lesser than a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the prepositions of law
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of “Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
Ors.” reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in the
subsequent judgments in the case of “Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and Ors.” 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and “Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors.”, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303 etc.
10.2 Now keeping in mind the aforesaid legal
principle/preposition for decision of the present issue, this
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.9 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:05
+0530
Tribunal has gone through the testimony of the witnesses and
entire material available on record. This Tribunal has also given
thoughtful consideration to arguments addressed by Ld. Counsels
for the parties.
10.3 In this matter to prove the rashness and negligence
in driving of offending vehicle by respondent no.1, the petitioner
has examined himself as PW-1. He in gist has deposed that on
09.04.2021, he was coming back to his home situated at
Paharganj, New Delhi from Dwarka on two wheeler (Honda
Activa) scooty bearing registration no. DL6SAW8231. At about
7:15 pm, when he reached at IMA Medico House D Block,
Janakpuri, Delhi, in the meantime, one Car bearing registration
No. DL2CAV7716 came in very high speed, in rash manner and
in negligent manner from behind. It hit him. Due to same, he
sustained grievous injuries. He has further deposed that the
incident in question took place due to negligence of the driver of
the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that incident
happened due to his rash and negligent driving and that the driver
of the other vehicle was driving in proper manner and at
moderate speed. The deposition of injured as to manner of
incident, the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner by the respondent no.1/driver remained
unshaken during cross-examination of said witness and in fact
was strengthened during same. Nothing supporting the case of
the respondents as to manner of incident or negligence came on
record in lengthy and skillful cross-examination done of said
witness by respondent.
10.4 The respondent no.1/driver was the best witness
who could have rebutted the case of rashness and negligence of
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.10 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:08
+0530
driving of the offending vehicle put forth by petitioner/claimant
side. But respondent no.1/driver has chosen not to come in
witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner side on said
aspect. In the given circumstances, adverse inference also needs
to be drawn against respondents. Reliance can be placed upon the
decision “Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh” 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310 upon said
issue/aspect.
10.5 In totality of circumstances, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that the claimant side has been able to bring on record
such facts which proves almost at the scales of preponderance of
probabilities that the incident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration
number DL2CAV7716 by its driver/respondent no.01 on the date
and time of the incident. Accordingly, issue no.01 is decided in
favour of the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s) and against
the respondents.
Issue No.(2) : whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation, if yes, at what amount and from whom?
OPP
11.1 The petitioner is certainly entitled for compensation
in view of decision of above issue. Before proceeding further to
decide the present issue, it would be apposite to encapsulate the
law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its guiding
lamp post judgment for ascertaining just compensation in road
vehicular injury cases.
11.2 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its division
bench decision in matter of “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.”
(2011) 1 SCC 343 has held : –
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.11 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:12 +0530
“General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that
compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the
claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding
damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far
as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The Court
or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with
reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A
person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the
loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those
normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his
inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. ( See C. K.
Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. – 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs.
Willoughby – 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
personal injury cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). 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. 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
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.12 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:15 +0530
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. Decision of this Court and 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. Assessment of future loss of earnings due
to permanent disability.
6. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to
perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a human-being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some
part of the body, found existing at the end of the period of treatment and
recuperation, after achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery
which is likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary
disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be either partial or
total. Partial permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to perform all
the duties and bodily functions that he could perform before the accident,
though he is able to perform some of them and is still able to engage in
some gainful activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s
inability to perform any avocation or employment related activities as a
result of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from motor
accidents 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
(`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.
7. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed by the
Doctors with reference to the whole body, or more often than not, with
reference to a particular limb. When a disability certificate states that the
injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent of 45% of the left
lower limb, it is not the same as 45% permanent disability with reference to
the whole body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the body)
expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that limb,
obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole
body. If there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand and 80%
permanent disability of left leg, it does not mean that the extent of
permanent disability with reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80%
plus 60%). If different parts of the body have suffered different percentages
of disabilities, the sum total thereof expressed in terms of the permanent
disability with reference to the whole body, cannot obviously exceed 100%.
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.13 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:19 +0530
8. 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, percentage of loss of earning capacity,
arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of
permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a
particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a
corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence
produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45%
loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent
(percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of
permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a
compensation. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of
the permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after
assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the
income, it has to be quantified in terns of money, to arrive at the future loss
of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine
loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on
appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that
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)
SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. – 2010
(8) SCALE 567).
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether there is
any permanent disability and if so the extent of such permanent disability.
This means that the tribunal should consider and decide with reference to
the evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or temporary; (ii) if
the disablement is permanent, whether it is permanent total disablement or
permanent partial disablement, (iii) if the disablement percentage is
expressed with reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the entire body, that is the
permanent disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal concludes that
there is no permanent disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if the
Tribunal concludes that there is permanent disability then it will proceed to
ascertain its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of
permanent disability of the claimant based on the medical evidence, it has to
determine whether such permanent disability has affected or will affect his
earning capacity.
10. 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
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.14 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:22 +0530
ability (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. For example, if the
left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent physical or functional
disablement may be assessed around 60%. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be hundred
percent, if he is neither able to drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if
the claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of his left hand may
not result in loss of employment and he may still be continued as a clerk as
he could perform his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of earning
capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or carpenter, nor 60%
which is the actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be
any need to award any compensation under the head of `loss of future
earnings’, if the claimant continues in government service, though he may
be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured claimant may be
continued in service, but may not found suitable for discharging the duties
attached to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of his
disability, and may therefore be shifted to some other suitable but lesser
post with lesser emoluments, in which case there should be a limited award
under the head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of the reduced
earning capacity. It may be noted that when compensation is awarded by
treating the loss of future earning capacity as 100% (or even anything more
than 50%), the need to award compensation separately under the head of
loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result,
only a token or nominal amount may have to be awarded under the head of
loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a
duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as it may.”
11.3 In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, in routine injury cases, award needs to
be passed only under heads of medical expenses, loss of earning
during treatment period and damages for pain, suffering and
trauma. In cases of serious injuries, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the claim/evidence of the
claimant, award additionally needs to be passed under the heads
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.15 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:24 +0530
of loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability
suffered, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (including
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. The
assessment of future medical expenses would depend upon
specific medical evidence/advise for further treatment and costs
thereof. The determination of damages on account of pain and
suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life would
depend upon the age of victim, nature of
injury(ies)/deprivation/disability suffered by victim and the effect
thereof on life of claimant. The process would involve
determination/assessment of lump-sum amounts under those
heads. In case of assessment of loss of future earnings on
account of permanent disability, the Tribunal needs to first
ascertain whether the disability noted/assessed by the medical
board is temporary or permanent in nature. If the disability is
permanent in nature, then whether it is a total permanent
disablement or partial permanent disablement. If the disablement
has been referred/expressed in percentage terms, in reference to
any specific limb then the effect of such disablement of the limb
on the function of entire body. Once, the permanent disability is
ascertained, then the Tribunal needs to determine whether such
permanent disability has affected or will affect the earning
capacity of the claimant. To ascertain same, the Tribunal needs
to ascertain the avocation, profession and nature of work of the
claimant before the incident. The Tribunal also needs to
ascertain his age and then needs to ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of permanent disability and what
he could not do as result of same. The Tribunal then also needs
to ascertain whether the claimant is totality disabled from earning
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.16 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:26 +0530
any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of the permanent
disability, the claimant could still effectively carry on activities
and functions which he was carrying on earlier or whether the
claimant is prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other or lesser
scale of activities and functions to earn or can continue to earn
his livelihood despite permanent disability suffered. After
ascertaining the functional disability vide above process, then
Tribunal needs to workout the loss of earning capacity per month.
The Tribunal is thereafter required to workout loss of earning
capacity per annum. An appropriate multiplier needs to be
ascertained as per judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in matter of “Sarla Verma Vs. DTC” 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
according to age of the injured/victim. The total loss of earning
capacity then needs to be worked out multiplying appropriate
multiplier ascertained with ascertained annual loss of earning
capacity. This is a case where no permanent disability is assessed
till yet and injured/petitioner is seeking loss of future income also
on basis of temporary disability assessed by the board. Hence,
this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to decide the
compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
DETERMINATION OF INJURIES AND DURATION OF
TREATMENT
11.4 It would be appropriate to first ascertain the nature
of injuries suffered by the injured/claimant and duration of
treatment as they needs to be kept in mind while ascertaining the
compensation under different heads applicable. The petitioner
has relied upon copies of discharge summaries Mark A. As per
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.17 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
same, injured has suffered polytrauma with extradural
haemorrhage with fracture bilateral distal femur with nerve
injury left lower limb. Petitioner has also examined Sh. Deepak
Sethi, Manager from Pentamed Hospital as PW-4 who has
brought on record the treatment records and bills of injured as
Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/5. As per same, injured was admitted in
Pentamed Hospital w.e.f. 26.11.2021 to 01.12.2021, 28.01.2022
to 03.02.2022, 06.03.2022 to 10.03.2022 and 07.05.2022 to
11.05.2022. He is still under treatment.
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF CLAIMANT/INJURED &
MULTIPLIER
11.5 The age of the claimant/injured would also be an
essential consideration for grant of just compensation under
different heads applicable in the present matter, so claimant’s age
also needs to be ascertained first. As per copy of Aadhar Card of
injured Ex.PW1/1, the date of birth of injured is 30.01.1956.
Incident took place on 09.04.2021. So, the injured was aged
about 66 years of age on the date of incident. So, the
injured/petitioner is taken as 66 years of age at the time of
incident/accident. Since, the injured falls in age bracket of above
65, so the multiplier applicable in this case would be 05.
DETERMINATION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES
11.6 The claimant/injured has examined Sh. Deepak
Sethi, Manager from Pentamed Hospital as PW-4 who has
brought on record the attested records of admission of patient
Major Singh, his treatment & bills Ex.PW4/1, bills of injured
from 26.11.2021 to 01.12.2021 Ex.PW4/2, bills from 28.01.2022
to 03.02.2022 Ex.PW4/3, bills from 06.03.2022 to 10.03.2022
Ex.PW4/4, bills from 07.05.2022 to 11.05.2022 Ex.PW4/5. Total
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.18 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:32 +0530
medical bills paid by the injured comes out to be Rs.1,12,811/-.
Hence, the petitioner has been able to prove that he is entitled for
a sum of Rs.1,12,811/- on account of medical bills/expenses.
Accordingly, the petitioner is awarded Rs.1,12,811/- on account
of medical expenses.
AWARD TOWARDS FUTURE TREATMENT
11.7 Petitioner has examined Dr. Pankaj Anand, Sr. Sr.
Consultant, Orthopedics in Pentamed Hospital & Tirath Ram
Hospital, Delhi as PW-5. PW-5 has deposed that injured needs to
be operated for his given two conditions and the approximate
expenses for both the surgeries would be around 4- 4.5 lakhs as
per his estimate. He has given the certificate to that effect to the
injured as Ex.PW5/A. Hence, he is entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- qua
future treatment.
PAIN & SUFFERINGS
11.8 A particular amount cannot be fixed of pain and
sufferings applicable to all cases as it varies from case to case.
Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that since the petitioner
has received number of serious injuries, therefore, petitioner
must have suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the said
injuries. Considering the nature of injuries, duration of the
treatment of the petitioner in the hospital and the temporary
disability(ies) suffered by the injured/petitioner as mentioned in
the disability certificate, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation
of Rs.2,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings to the petitioner.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF INCOME DURING
TREATMENT PERIOD
11.9(i) The injured/petitioner/claimant has claimed that he
was doing business of furniture and used to earn Rs.4,71,300/-
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.19 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:42 +0530
per annum at the time of incident. In order to prove the income,
petitioner has examined Sh. Vikrant, Inspector from Income Tax
Department as PW-3 who has brought on record ITRs of injured
having PAN Number ASAPS1488A filed for the financial years
2018-19 to 2021-2022 as Ex.PW3/1. As per said ITR of the
assessment year 2020-2021, income of injured was Rs.3,91,400/-
per annum. So, the monthly income of the injured need to be
taken as Rs.32,617/- per month (after rounding of Rs.32,616.66)
(Rs.3,91,400/12) at the time of incident.
11.9(ii) Accordingly, the monthly income of the injured is
considered as Rs.32,617/- per month on the date of accident for
purpose of present assessment.
11.9(iii) Considering the nature of injuries and duration of
the treatment of the injured/petitioner, this tribunal is of the
opinion that injured/petitioner must have not been able to work
for about 36 months. Accordingly, this tribunal hereby grant
compensation of sum of Rs.11,74,212/- (Rs.32,617/- x 36)
towards loss of income during treatment period.
DETERMINATION OF LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS &
ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY
11.10 The disability assessment reports of the injured were
received. First assessment report dated 05.04.2023 was received
from Guru Gobind Singh Government Hospital, Raghubir Nagar,
New Delhi wherein the board assessed 90% temporary disability
in relation to lower limbs of the injured. The disability was
stated to be non-progressive and likely to be improve with
reassessment required after one year of completion of treatment.
Another report of assessment of disability from Govind Ballabh
Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research,
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.20 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:44 +0530
Govt. of NCT of Delhi was also received wherein locomotor dis-
ability of the injured was assessed to be 60%, the same also as-
sessed to be likely to improve and temporary in nature. It was
submitted/contended by injured side during final submissions
that already more than 04 years have passed since the incident,
the complete treatment of injured would take long time and what-
ever surgeries/treatment he may under go, he would be left with
substantial permanent disability. It was submitted that injured
could not wait further due to financial constraints and future loss
of income due to disabilities suffered by injured be granted to
him. On this issue, contention of respondent Insurance Company
is that through they have sympathy towards injured/claimant see-
ing his present condition, however, as per evidence of doctors on
record, his condition would improve with treatment/surgeries
which are advised to him and temporary disability assessment
reports cannot be basis of grant of future loss of income.
11.11 In this matter, PW-5 Dr. Pankaj Anand who is treat-
ing doctor of injured has deposed that the injured needs to be op-
erated for both his cases of polytrauma along with compound
fracture left femur along with implant in SITU & infection and
for the case of foot drop left side. He has deposed that with in-
tended surgeries/treatment, overall condition of the patient qua
his disability may be improve upto 40-50%. PW-6 Dr. Sujata
Roshan, Professor in Neurology Department at G.B. Pant Insti-
tute, New Delhi has also deposed that there would be no im-
provement in condition of patient if he does not take any further
treatment. She however, further deposed that after two surgeries
as suggested by PW-5, she could not guess the exact improve-
ment in the condition of patient. From deposition of two medical
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.21 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:54:47 +0530
experts on record, it is clear that whatever treatment/surgeries,
the injured would obtain in future, he would still be left with
some permanent locomotor disability. The petitioner/injured
has suffered major injuries and has been suffering for last more
than 04 years. Asking the petitioner/injured to further wait for
completion of his treatment and reassessment of his disability af-
ter completion of treatment or considering the case of
petitioner/injured as having suffered no disability would be a
grave injustice to the petitioner/injured in this matter. Consider-
ing the temporary disability certificates available on record, the
evidence of two medical experts, the fact that neuro physiologi-
cal disability is playing major part in disability of the injured, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner/injured would be left
with at least 30% permanent disability in relation to his left lower
limb even after the recommended treatment which he may un-
dergo in future. Hence, this Tribunal considers the permanent
disability suffered by the injured in the present matter to be 30%
for the purpose of assessment of compensation of loss of future
earnings in the interest of justice. This Tribunal is further
inclined to take functional disability equivalent to the 30%
considering that the fact that injured would be hampered to great
extent in his earlier business of furniture or any other work which
he may take in future.
DETERMINATION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS APPLICABLE
11.12 The injured was aged more than 60 years at the time
of incident. Hence, no future prospects applicable to the present
case.
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY/LOSS OF FUTURE EARN-
ING
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.22 of 32 Digitally signed HARVINDER by HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:50 +0530 11.13 The monthly income of injured has already been
assessed to be Rs.32,617/-. The total loss of earning capacity/loss
of future earning would come out to be Rs.5,87,106/-
(Rs.32,617/-x 12 x 05 x 30/100). Hence, so awarded.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE
11.14 Considering the age of the injured, the nature of
injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, the disability
certificate of claimant/injured, the duration of treatment of
claimant/injured and the fact that the disability suffered by
claimant/injured may hamper to some extent in driving vehicles,
climbing, sports activities etc., this Tribunal hereby grant
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of amenities of
life.
AWARD TOWARDS LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF LIFE
11.15 Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the
injured/petitioner, duration of his treatment and disability(ies)
suffered, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of expectation of life.
AWARD QUA SPECIAL DIET
11.16 Though, there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon special diet, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner and
duration of his treatment in the hospitals, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that petitioner must have spent some money under this
head. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant compensation of
Rs.25,000/- towards expenses incurred on special diet.
AWARD TOWARDS ATTENDANT CHARGES
11.17 Petitioner examined one attendant Sh. Mohd. Aakil
as PW-2 who in gist has deposed that on 24.04.2021, Major
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.23 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:53 +0530
Singh engaged him as attendant. He was employed him for the
said purpose for two years and was paid Rs.11,000/- to
Rs.12,000/- per month. Hence, this Tribunal hereby grant
Rs.2,64,000/- [Rs.11,000/- x 24] towards attendant charges.
AWARD TOWARDS CONVEYANCE CHARGES
11.18 Though there is no cogent evidence on record of
money spent by the petitioner upon conveyance, yet considering
the nature of injuries suffered by the injured/petitioner, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the injured/petitioner must have
been spent some money under this head. Hence, this Tribunal
hereby grant compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards expenses
incurred on conveyance.
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL
AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS TABULATED HEREIN
BELOW : –
S.No. Heads of Compensation Amount in Rupees
1. Reimbursement of medical 1,12,811/-
expenses
2. Compensation on account of 4,00,000/-
future treatment
3. Pain and Suffering 2,50,000/-
4. Conveyance 25,000/-
5. Special diet 25,000/-
6. Attendant charges 2,64,000/-
7. Loss of Income during 11,74,212/-
treatment period
8. Loss of earning capacity/loss 5,87,106/-
of future earning
9. Loss of amenities of life 1,00,000/-
10. Loss of expectation of life 1,00,000/-
Total Rs.30,38,129/- Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors. MACT No.393/2021 Page No.24 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:55 +0530 RELIEF:- 12. This Tribunal hereby pass an award of
Rs.30,38,129/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One
Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) as compensation with interest at
the rate of 7% per annum including interim award, if any from
the date of filing the DAR/claim petition i.e. 11.10.2021 till the
date of the payment of the award amount, in favour of
petitioner/claimant and against the respondents on account of
their liability being joint and several.
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
13. As the offending vehicle was admittedly insured
with the respondent no.03/Insurance company, respondent
no.03/insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the award
amount in favour of the petitioner(s) with State Bank of India,
Tis Hazari, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi in MACT Account
of this Tribunal having Account No.40711767202, CIF
No.90891362578, IFSC Code – SBIN0000726, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi as stated herein above within a period of 45 days
from the date of passing of this award together with the interest
as stated herein above under intimation to this Tribunal and under
intimation to the petitioner(s)/claimant(s)/applicant(s). In case of
any delay, it shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per
annum for the period of delay.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT TO
THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE’
(MCTAP)
14.1 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO No.842/2003
titled as “Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. ” has
formulated MACAD (Motor Accident Claims Annuity Deposit
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.25 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:54:59 +0530
Scheme) vide its order dated 07.12.2018 which was made
effective from 01.01.2019. The State Bank of India, Tis Hazari,
Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi is directed to disburse the
amount in accordance with MACAD formulated by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
14.2 Keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the respondent no.03/insurance
company is directed to deposit the award amount of
Rs.30,38,129/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One
Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) as stated herein above with
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi
in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having Account
No.40711767202 CIF No.90891362578, IFSC Code –
SBIN0000726 in favour the petitioner(s)/applicant(s)/ claimant(s)
as stated herein above.
14.3 Out of the total award amount, Manager, State Bank
of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi is directed to
release/disburse the amount of Rs.10,38,129/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Nine Only)
immediately to the injured/petitioner.
14.4 Manager, SBI Tis Hazari Delhi is directed to release
Rs.10,38,129/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One
Hundred and Twenty Nine Only) in the MACT account of
petitioner bearing MACT Account No. 43884217655 maintained
with SBI, 3/6, Deshbandu Gupta Road, Paharganj Branch, IFSC
Code: SBIN0000737.
14.5 The rest of the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and
interest shall be kept in equal monthly FDR’s of Rs.20,000/- each
for the period of 100 months of principal amount and for further
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.26 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:55:06
+0530
months dividing the interest by Rs.20,000/-. The remainder, if
any, of said division shall be added in the last FDR. All FDRs
shall be numbered from 1st to last and shall be released from 1 st to
last in each consecutive month with interest accumulated in the
MACT account of petitioner. Money shall be withdrawn through
withdrawal slip only.
14.6 The following conditions shall be adhered to by
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts Branch, Delhi with respect
to the fixed deposits : –
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be added in the
savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimant(s)
i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the claimant(s) shall be an
individual savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(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(s).
(c) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the MACT bank account of the claimant
(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be
allowed on the fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(e) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or
debit card to claimant(s). However, in case the debit card and/or
cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same
before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit
card (s) freeze the account of the claimant(s) so that no debit card
be issued in respect of the account of the claimant(s) from any
other branch of the bank.
(f) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the
claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for
compliance.
(g) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank along with
the duly signed and stamped by the bank official on the
passbook(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient compliance of clause
(g) above.
15. In accordance with the orders dated 08.02.2019
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003 in
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.27 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:55:08 +0530
“Rajesh Tyagi and others Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors.” , Mr. Rajan
Singh, Assistant General Manager has been appointed as Nodal
Officer of State Bank of India having Phone No.022-
22741336/9414048606 and e mail ID [email protected]. In
case of any assistance or non compliance, the aforesaid Nodal
Officer may be contacted. A copy of this order be sent by e-mail
to the aforesaid Nodal Officer of the aforesaid bank by the
Ahlmad of the Court immediately in accordance with the
directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as given in the orders
dated 07.12.2018. The Nodal Officer of the bank shall ensure the
disbursement of the award amount within three weeks of the
receipt of the e-mail as mentioned in the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
16. The respondent no.03/Insurance Company shall
deposit the award amount with the account of this Tribunal
within 45 days. Nazir of this Court shall prepare a separate file
regarding the status of deposition/non-deposition of the award
amount by the respondent(s) after making necessary entry on CIS
on 11.07.2025.
17. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost through email.
18. Ahlmad staff is directed to send the copy of award
to Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class concerned and Delhi Legal
Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022[(Directions at serial nos.39, 40 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)].
19. Ahlmad staff is also directed to e-mail an
authenticated copy of the award to the insurer as directed by the
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.28 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:55:11 +0530
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.” decided on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall
also e-email an authenticated copy of the award to Branch
Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Court Complex Branch
for information.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Announced in the open Tribunal
on 26th of May, 2025
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/26.05.2025
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.29 of 32 Digitally signed by HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.05.26 16:55:15 +0530 FORM-XVI
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT
IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 09.04.2021
2. Name of the injured : Major Singh
3. Age of the injured : 30.01.1956
4. Occupation of the injured: Business
5. Income of the injured : Rs.32,617/- per month
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : 09.04.2021 till date
8. Period of Hospitalization : 26.11.2021 to 01.12.2021,
28.01.2022 to 03.02.2022,
06.03.2022 to 10.03.2022
and 07.05.2022 to
11.05.2022
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? : 60% temporary disability
If yes, give details :
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss :-
(I) Expenditure on 1,12,811
treatment
(ii) Expenditure on Rs.25,000/-
conveyance
(iii) Expenditure on special Rs.25,000/-
diet
(iv) Cost of Rs.2,64,000/-
nursing/attendant
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.5,87,106
(vi) Loss of Income Rs. 11,74,212/-
(loss of earning during
treatment period)
(vii) Any other loss which Rs.4,00,000/- (Future
may require any special treatment)
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss :-
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.30 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:55:17 +0530
(i) Compensation for NIL
mental and physical
shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-
(iv) Dis-figuration NA
(v) Loss of marriage NA
prospects
(vi) Loss of earning, NA
inconvenience,
hardships,
disappointment,
frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and
unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity :-
(i) Percentage of disability 60%
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent
or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or Rs.1,00,000/- (Loss of
loss of expectation of Expectation of Life)
life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of 30%
earning capacity in
relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income - NIL
(Income x% Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.30,38,129/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7% per annum
16. Interest amount up to Rs.7,70,925/-
the date of award (w.e.f. 11.10.2021 to
26.05.2025 i.e. 3 years 7
months and 15 days)
17. TOTAL AMOUNT Rs.38,09,054/-
INCLUDING (Rs.30,38,129/- +
INTEREST Rs.7,70,925/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.10,38,129/-
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.31 of 32
Digitally signed by
HARVINDER HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:55:19 +0530
19. Award amount kept in Rs. 20,00,000/- + interest
FDRs accrued
20. Mode of disbursement Mentioned in the award
of the award amount to
the claimant (s).
21. Next date for 11.07.2025
compliance of the
award.
(HARVINDER SINGH)
District Judge-cum-PO:MACT-01,
West/THC/Delhi/26.05.2025
Major Singh Vs. Rajat & Ors.
MACT No.393/2021 Page No.32 of 32
Digitally signed
by HARVINDER
HARVINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.26
16:55:22 +0530