[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Sachin vs Gurcharan Singh on 5 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
LD. PO-MACT-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No. 2492/2016
CNR No. DLSW01-010073-2016
FIR No. 279/2016
PS: Sector-23, Dwarka
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Sachin
S/o Sh. Joginder Singh,
R/o Village Achhej, District Jhajjar,
Haryana. ... (Petitioner)
Versus
1) Sh. Gurcharan Singh
S/o Sh. Gurbax Singh
R/o Village Magar, Tehsil Kharar,
District Mohali, Punjab. ... (Driver)
2) Sh. Harvinder Singh
S/o Sh. Gurbax Singh
R/o VPO Desu Majra, Tehsil Kharar,
District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab. ...(Owner)
3) New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Scope Minar, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi.
.... (Insurance company)
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.12.2016
Date of judgment : 05.06.2025
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 27
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 14.09.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not Available
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 24.12.2016
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal
(Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 24.12.2016
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 24.12.2016
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR N/A
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on Yes
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N/A
by the insurance Company (Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the N/A
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Not Available
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 27
Insurance Company submitted his report
within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Not Available
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer
of the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the No
offer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 05.06.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 05.02.2018
directed to open saving bank account (s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Aadhar 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(s). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 11.09.2024
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Village Achhej,
Claimant(s) (Clause 27) District Jhajjar,
Haryana
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the S.B. Account
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with No.075110400
IFSC Code (Clause 27) 0127424 at
IDBI Bank,
Jhajjar,
Haryana (IFSC
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 27
Code:
IBKL0000751)
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his/her place of residence?
(Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition? (Clause 27)
27. Account number, MICR number IFSC Code, Account No.
name and branch of the bank of the Claims 42709452600 at
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBI Dwarka,
deposited/transferred. Sector-10,
Dwarka Courts
Complex, IFSC
Code:
SBIN0011566
& MICR No.
110002483.
AWAR D
Preface
1. Detailed Accident Reports (DAR) seeking compensation
for (i) death of Manoj AND (ii) bodily injury to Sachin in motor
vehicle accident being subject matter of FIR No.279/2016 PS
Sector-23, Dwarka are taken up together to be decided
simultaneously.
Background
2. Brief facts gleaned from DAR read with Final Report
under section 279/338/304A IPC are that Sachin driving Swift
Car No.HR-63-2247 along with Manoj (Guard) was returning to
Gurgaon, Haryana after dropping 03 employees of Black Rock
Company at Sector-5, Dwarka, New Delhi. As they reached near
Kargil Chowk, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi in the wee hours
of 14.09.2016 at around 2:00 am (night), offending Truck No.PB-
65R-9011 coming from opposite side at very high speed in rash
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 27
and negligent manner hit their Car/Taxi with huge impact
resulting in grievous/serious injuries. Both Sachin and Manoj
were shifted to Ayushman Hospital where Manoj admitted upon
MLC No.4240/16 was declared ‘Brought Dead’ whereas Sachin
admitted upon MLC No.4239/16 was referred to Higher Centre
for further management.
3. FIR No.279/2016 under section 279/337/304A IPC was
registered at PS Sector-23, Dwarka on 14.09.2016 and site-plan
was prepared by the IO. Dead body of Manoj S/o Bharat Singh
was handed over to its relative after identification & postmortem
examination at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi. Respondent
Gurcharan Singh (driver) produced by Harvinder Singh (owner)
pursuant to notice under section 133 of M.V. Act was formally
arrested on 15.09.2016 and released on police bail. Statement of
injured Sachin was recorded by IO AND Swift Dzire Car No.HR-
63-2247 & Truck No.PB-65R-9011 recovered from the spot in
accidental condition were released on superdari after their
mechanical inspection. Documents including DL, RC, Permit,
Fitness and Policy produced by respondents were verified from
concerned authorities and offence under section 338 IPC was
added on the basis of Treatment Record & final opinion of
Grievous Injury. IO, thereafter, concluded investigation and
prepared DAR which was filed in Court along with copy of Final
Report under section 279/338/304A IPC.
Defence
4. Respondent Gurcharan Singh (driver) joined proceedings
on 24.12.2016 but did not file any reply.
5. Respondent Harvinder Singh (owner), on the other hand,
has filed reply disputing negligence of the driver and liability to
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 27
pay compensation by mentioning (i) valid & effective licence
held by the driver AND (ii) Policy No.35020031160100003305
of the vehicle valid from 26.06.2016 to 25.06.2017.
6. Respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on its part has
admitted Commercial Vehicle Package Policy No.
35020031160100003305 of Truck No. PB-65R-9011 insured
from 26.06.2016 to 25.06.2017 AND disputed liability to pay
compensation on the ground of violation of the terms &
condition of Policy under section 149(2)(a)(ii) of M.V. Act by
relying upon judgment titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Rakesh Kumar & Ors. MAC. APP. No. 329/2010 of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi.
Inquiry
7. Following issues were settled on 05.02.2018 and matter
was posted for petitioner’s evidence.
i. Whether Sachin sustained grievous &
Manoj sustained fatal injuries in a motor
vehicle accident dt. 14.09.2016 due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle (Truck) no.
PB-65R-9011 being driven by respondent
no.1 Gurcharan Singh, owned by
respondent no.2 Harvinder Singh and
insured by respondent on.3 New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.? … OPP
ii. Whether the petitioners in the above
mentioned cases are entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? …OPP
iii. Relief.
8. Injured Sachin examined as PW-1 has inter alia deposed
about – (i) Head Injuries & Fracture of Upper Left Hand
sustained in motor vehicle accident near Kargil Chowk, Sector-
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 27
11, Dwarka, New Delhi on 14.09.2016 at around 1:45 am (night)
after Taxi/Swift Car No.HR-63-2247 was hit by offending Truck
No.PB-65R-9011 coming from the wrong side at very high speed
in rash and negligent manner; (ii) MLC No. 4239/16 prepared at
Ayushman Hospital and further treatment at Medanta Hospital,
Gurgaon, Haryana; (iii) monthly income Rs.16,000/- with
additional perks including Overtime, Dress Allowance, Night
Allowance, etc.; (iv) expenses incurred on treatment, medicines,
conveyance, attendant & special diet; (v) DAR prepared by IO
in FIR No.279/2016, PS Sector-23, Dwarka AND (vi) general
and special damages consequent to bodily injury suffered in road
accident. He has relied upon following documents:
i. Copy of Aadhar Card – Ex.PW-1/1;
ii. Copy of PAN Card – Ex.PW-1/2;
iii. Copies of Mark-sheet of Secondary Examination, Senior
Secondary Certificate Examination & Provisional State
Level Trade Certificate – Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly.);
iv. Discharge Summary & Treatment Record of MedantaHospital, Gurgaon, Haryana – Ex.PW-1/4 (Colly.);
v. Medical Bills & Receipts of Medanta, The Medicity,
Global Health Pvt. Ltd. – Ex.PW-1/5 (Colly.);
vi. MLC No. 4239/16 of Ayushman Hospital, Sector-12,Dwarka, New Delhi – Ex.PW-1/6;
vii. DAR – Ex.PW-1/7 ;
viii. Final Report under section 279/337/304A – Ex.PW-1/8;
ix. Copy of FIR – Ex.PW-1/9;
x. Copy of Site-plan – Ex.PW-1/10;
xi. Copy of Arrest Memo of Gurcharan Singh (driver) –
Ex.PW-1/11.
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 27
9. Sh. Bharat Singh, father of deceased Manoj, examined as
PW-2 has inter alia deposed about (i) death of his son in motor
vehicle accident near Kargil Chowk, Sector-11, Dwarka, New
Delhi on 14.09.2016 at night after Swift Dzire Car No.HR-63-
2247 was hit by offending Truck No.PB-65R-9011 driven at very
high speed in rash and negligent manner; (ii) MLC No. 4240/16
prepared at Ayushman Hospital, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi;
(iii) postmortem examination of deceased conducted at DDU
Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi; (iv) DAR prepared by IO after
completion of investigation in FIR No.279/2016, PS Sector-23,
Dwarka; (v) monthly income Rs.15,000/- being earned by Manoj
Kumar by working as Security Guard AND (vi) general and
special damages suffered on account of untimely death of his son
in motor vehicle accident. He has relied upon following
documents:
i. DAR – Ex.PW-2/1;
ii. Death Certificate of deceased – Ex.PW-2/2.
10. Cross-examination of PW-1 Sachin (injured) AND PW-2
Sh. Bharat Singh (father of deceased Manoj) by Ld. counsel for
respondents has been recorded and petitioner’s evidence was
closed on 27.05.2019.
11. R2W1 Ranbeer Singh, son of Harvinder Singh (owner) has
disputed (i) rash and/or negligent driving AND (ii) liability to
compensate the victims by mentioning Policy
No.35020031160100003305 of the vehicle from 26.06.2016 to
25.06.2017 AND insisting valid & effective licence held by the
driver who was employed after verifying his Licence & Driving
Skills. He has relied upon following documents:
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 27
i. Copy of Driving Licence of Gurcharan Singh & RTI
Reports – Ex.R2W1/1 (Colly.) (22 pages);
ii. Copy of Power of Attorney – Ex.R2W1/2 (Colly.);
iii. Photocopy of Licence of deponent – Ex.R2W1/3.
12. Examination-in-chief & cross-examination of R2W1 by
Ld. counsel for claimants & insurance company has been
recorded on 05.02.2024.
13. R3W1 Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Legal Assistant, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. on his part has disputed liability of the
insurer to pay compensation on the ground of violation of the
terms & condition of Policy under section 149(2)(a)(ii) of M.V.
Act by relying upon following documents:
i. Copy of Policy – Ex.R3W1/1;
ii. Verification Report of ASI Bijender Singh (IO) – Mark
‘A’;
iii. Copy of FIR No.65/2017 under section 420/468/471 IPC
regarding Fake Licence No.FR-3593/MKG/14 – Mark
‘B’;
iv. Investigation Report of Narendra Tapodhan, Investigator
Insurance – Ex.R3W1/2;
v. Copy of Notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, Original
Postal Receipts & Tracking Report – Ex.R3W1/3 (Colly.).
14. Cross-examination of R3W1 Sh. Gurdeep Singh by Ld.
counsel for claimants & respondents has been recorded.
Discussion and Conclusion
15. Advocate Sh. J.S. Dagar for injured, Advocate Sh. Manoj
Kumar Rai for R2/owner AND Advocate Sh. Garud M.V. for
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. have addressed their submissions.
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 27
16. I have carefully perused pleadings and evidence adduced
on judicial file. My issue wise finding is recorded below:
17. Issue No.1:
Whether Sachin sustained grievous &
Manoj sustained fatal injuries in a motor
vehicle accident dt. 14.09.2016 due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle (Truck) no.
PB-65R-9011 being driven by respondent
no.1 Gurcharan Singh, owned by
respondent no.2 Harvinder Singh and
insured by respondent on.3 New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.? … OPP
18. PW-1 Sachin has deposed about Head Injuries & Fracture
of Upper Left Hand sustained in motor vehicle accident near
Kargil Chowk, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi on 14.09.2016 at
around 1:45 am (night) after Taxi/Swift Car No.HR-63-2247 was
hit by offending Truck No.PB-65R-9011 coming from the wrong
side at very high speed in rash and negligent manner.
19. His testimony has remained consistent and nothing
material could be elicited during cross-examination of injured
which could assail his testimony or impeach its veracity.
Following extracts of cross-examination of PW-1 (injured) being
relevant is reproduced below for reference:
“It is wrong to suggest that the accident did
not take place due to rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle bearing No.
No.PB 65 R 9011. It is wrong to suggest that
accident took place due to negligent driving
of our own vehicle.”
20. PW-2 Bharat Singh, father of deceased Manoj, on his part
has fairly conceded that he is not an eye-witness to the accident.
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 27
21. Respondent Gurcharan Singh (driver), on the other hand,
has not entered the witness-box to rebut allegation of rash and
negligent driving of Truck No.PB-65R-9011 resulting in death of
Manoj AND grievous injuries suffered by Sachin in motor
vehicle accident. Adverse inference is therefore required to be
raised against the driver as per the dicta of Hon’ble High Court
of Orissa in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Durdadshya
Kumar Samal & Ors. 1987 SCC Online Ori. 57 AND
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Kamlesh
& Ors. decided by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 11th
November, 2008.
22. It is well settled law that negligence of the driver in case of
road traffic accident is required to be established on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to claim petitions under
Motor Vehicle Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
para 15 of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SCC 530.
23. Following observations in para 15 of aforesaid judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted herein below:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the
Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view
of the matter. It was necessary to be borne
in mind that strict proof of an accident
caused by a particular bus in a particular
manner may not be possible to be done by
the claimants. The claimants were merely
to establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied….”
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 27
24. Similar observation has been recorded by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in para 12 of its judgment delivered in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2007 SCC
Online Del 1700 by holding that proceedings under Motor
Vehicle Act are not akin to proceeding in a civil suit hence strict
rules of evidence are not required to be followed and FIR against
the driver along with criminal record of the case showing
completion of investigation by the police leading to Final Report
are sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the driver was
negligent.
25. FINDING: Issue No.1 is therefore decided by holding that
death of Manoj S/o Bharat Singh AND grievous injuries suffered
by Sachin in motor vehicle accident on 14.09.2016 was caused as
a result of rash and negligent driving of Truck No.PB-65R-9011
by R1/Gurcharan Singh (driver) which vehicle was registered in
the name of Harvinder Singh (owner) and insured with New
India Assurance Co. Ltd.
26. Issue No.2
Whether the petitioners in the above
mentioned cases are entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? … OPP
27. Injured Sachin having suffered bodily injuries in motor
vehicle accident was shifted to Ayushman Hospital where MLC
No.4239/16 was prepared and injured was referred Higher Centre
for further management. He, thereafter, remained admitted at
Medanta, The Medicity, Global Health Pvt. Ltd. from 14.09.2016
to 27.09.2016 and underwent – ORIF of Left Humerous in course
of treatment for injuries including (i) Depressed Fracture of the
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 27
Right Frontal Bone; (ii) Right Frontal Hemorrhagic Contusion;
(iii) Fracture Nasal Bone AND (iv) Fracture Mandible.
28. Quantum of compensation is required to be assessed
separately under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.
29. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that compensation
is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly and Courts & 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 special features, if any,
as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello
Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
30. Following para of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 551 being relevant is extracted herein below:
“9. Broadly speaking 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.
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 27
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.”
31. Heads of compensation under pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages have been further explained by Hon’ble Apex
Court in para 6 of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1
SCC 343 which reads as under:
“6. 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.
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 27
(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.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
32. Injured Sachin was shifted to Ayushman Hospital, Dwarka,
Delhi where MLC No.4239/16 was prepared and underwent –
ORIF of Left Humerous in course of treatment for injuries
including (i) Depressed Fracture of the Right Frontal Bone; (ii)
Right Frontal Hemorrhagic Contusion; (iii) Fracture Nasal Bone
AND (iv) Fracture Mandible.
33. No other document has been filed on record or relied in
evidence to show any other injury.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
34. PW-1 Sachin has deposed to have spent Rs.4,70,477/- on
treatment and denied suggestion disputing Medical Bills of
Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana. Aggregate sum of
Rs.4,70,344/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three
Hundred & Forty Four only) against IPD Bill & OPD Bills of
Medanta, The Medicity, Global Health Pvt. Ltd. is therefore
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 27
awarded to injured towards pecuniary damage under the head –
Medicine & Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
35. PW-1 Sachin in para 8 of affidavit Ex.PW-1/A has deposed
to have spent Rs.50,000/- on conveyance and Rs.60,000/- on
special diet. However, no bill/documentary proof has been
adduced in evidence verifying expenses incurred on Conveyance
& Special Diet.
36. Discharge Summary & Treatment Record reveals that
injured Sachin remained admitted at Medanta, The Medicity,
Global Health Pvt. Ltd. from 14.09.2016 to 27.09.2016 and
continued to visit the hospital for treatment till 13.06.2017. It is
assumed that he might have used private vehicle/hired taxi for
visiting Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana till 13.06.2017.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) is awarded to injured towards conveyance.
37. Similarly, injured Sachin must have also needed special
diet for full and complete recovery from (i) Fracture of Left
Hemurous AND (ii) Head Injury including – Depressed Fracture
of the Right Frontal Bone; Right Frontal Hemorrhagic
Contusion; Fracture Nasal Bone & Fracture Mandible. Another
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) is therefore
awarded to injured towards special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
38. Injured Sachin has deposed to have hired Attendant who is
being paid Rs.8,000/- per month for helping him in his daily
routine. However, no bill/documentary proof verifying expenses
incurred on attendant has been adduced in evidence. It is
assumed that injured Sachin having suffered (i) Fracture of Left
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 27
Hemurous AND (ii) Head Injury including – Depressed Fracture
of the Right Frontal Bone; Right Frontal Hemorrhagic
Contusion; Fracture Nasal Bone & Fracture Mandible might
have needed an attendant to assist him for around four months
even if such gratuitous service was rendered by some or the other
of his family/relatives. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Delhi
Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari Lalita 1982 SCC
Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim cannot be deprived of
compensation towards gratuitous service rendered by some of his
family member. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of material on record, a sum of Rs.10,000/-
x 4 = Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) is awarded to
injured towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
39. PW-1 Sachin having deposed about monthly income
Rs.16,000/- with additional perks including Overtime, Dress
Allowance, Night Allowance etc. has admitted to have not filed
any documentary proof verifying employment and monthly
income Rs.16,000/- during his cross-examination by Ld. counsel
for insurance company. Monthly income of injured in the absence
of cogent evidence is therefore taken as per minimum wage of
‘Matriculate’ @ Rs.11,622/- applicable in Delhi w.e.f.
01.04.2016.
40. It is assumed that injured Sachin having suffered (i)
Fracture of Left Hemurous AND (ii) Head Injury including –
Depressed Fracture of the Right Frontal Bone; Right Frontal
Hemorrhagic Contusion; Fracture Nasal Bone & Fracture
Mandible would have taken around four months to recover from
bodily injury suffered in motor vehicle accident. He is, therefore,
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 27
awarded Rs.11,622/- x 4 = Rs.46,488/- (Rupees Forty Six
Thousand Four Hundred & Eighty Eight only) towards loss of
earning in course of treatment & recovery from grievous injury
suffered in road accident.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
41. Following factors are to be taken into account for assessing
compensation under the head – Pain and Suffering:
i. Nature of injury;
ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred;
iii. Surgeries, if any;
iv. Confinement in hospital;
v. Duration of the treatment.
42. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 of Arvind
Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(2010) 10 SCC 254 has observed that whole idea in case of
assessment of all damages for personal injury is to put the
claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in
mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the
hands of wrongdoer and Court must take care to give him full
and fair compensation for that he had suffered.
43. Injured Sachin having suffered (i) Fracture of Left
Hemurous AND (ii) Head Injury including – Depressed Fracture
of the Right Frontal Bone; Right Frontal Hemorrhagic
Contusion; Fracture Nasal Bone & Fracture Mandible remained
admitted at Medanta, The Medicity, Global Health Pvt. Ltd. from
14.09.2016 to 27.09.2016 and continued to visit the hospital for
treatment till 13.06.2017. It would be apposite to award him a
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 27
sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under the
head – ‘Pain & Suffering’.
LOSS OF AMENITIES, LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF
LIFE, LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING/PROSPECTS AND
FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
44. Discharge Summary & Treatment Record of Medanta, The
Medicity, Global Health Pvt. Ltd. has been referred as Ex.PW-1/4
and PW-1 Sachin has fairly conceded to have not suffered any
disability due to injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident.
45. Compensation for (i) loss of future earning/prospects AND
(ii) non pecuniary damages including loss of amenities and loss
of expectation of life is not required to be assessed in the absence
of serious injury resulting in permanent physical disability.
46. Break-up of compensation awarded to injured under
pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads is mentioned below in
tabulated form:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (in
Rupees)
1. Medicines & Treatment Rs.4,70,344/-
2. Conveyance Rs.25,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.50,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.40,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs.46,488/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/-
TOTAL Rs.6,81,832/-
rounded off to
Rs.6,82,000/-
INTEREST
47. There is nothing on record to justify withholding interest
on the award amount. Having regard to the facts and
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 27
circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to
grant interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount in terms
of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johar & Anr. (2019) 15 SCC
260. Injured Sachin is therefore awarded interest @ 7.5% per
annum upon award amount Rs.6,82,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs &
Eighty Two Thousand only) from the date of filing of DAR on
24.12.2016 till notice of deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC to
petitioner/counsel.
LIABILITY
48. Advocate Sh. Garud M.V. for New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. has disputed liability of insurer to compensate victims on the
ground of violation of the terms & condition of Policy under
section 149(2)(a)(ii) of M.V. Act by adverting to (i) Verification
Report of ASI Bijender Singh (IO) – Mark ‘A’; (ii) Copy of FIR
No. 65/2017 under section 420/468/471 IPC regarding Fake
Licence No. FR-3593/MKG/14 – Mark ‘B’ AND (iii)
Investigation Report of Narendra Tapodhan, Investigator
Insurance – Ex.R3W1/2.
49. Advocate Sh. Manoj Kumar Rai for R2/owner, per contra,
has referred to para 10 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India titled Rishi Pal Singh Vs. New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No.4919 of 2022 which reads as
under:
“10. The owner of the vehicle is expected to
verify the driving skills and not run to the
licensing authority to verify the genuineness
of the driving license before appointing a
driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied
that the driver is competent to drive the
vehicle, it is not expected from the owner
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 27
thereafter to verify the genuineness of the
driving license issued to the driver.”
50. It is apposite to note that R2W1 Ranbeer Singh,
son/Attorney of Harvinder Singh (owner) has disputed liability of
the owner by insisting about valid & effective licence held by the
driver who being ‘Trained Driver’ was employed after verifying
his Licence & Driving Skills.
51. Hon’ble Apex Court in its later judgment titled IFFCO
TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Geeta Devi 2023 SCC
Online 1398 has dealt with similar contention regarding fake
license by observing that no person employing a driver would
undertake such verification exercise to confirm and verify
whether driving license produced by the driver is valid and
genuine.
52. Para 8 of aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India being relevant is reproduced for reference:
“8. As regards the contention that the driver
of the vehicle was not duly licensed as he
possessed a fake license, it may be noted that
neither Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act of
1988 nor the ‘Driver Clause’ in the subject
insurance policy provide that the owner of
the insured vehicle must, as a rule, get the
driving licence of the person employed as a
driver for the said vehicle verified and
checked with the concerned transport
authorities. Generally, and as a matter of
course, no person employing a driver would
undertake such a verification exercise and
would be satisfied with the production of a
licence issued by a seemingly competent
authority, the validity of which has not
expired. It would be wholly impracticable for
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 27
every person employing a driver to expect
the transport authority concerned to verify
and confirm whether the driving licence
produced by that driver is a valid and
genuine one, subject to just exceptions…..”
53. Similar observation has been recorded by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in its earlier judgment titled Ram
Chandra Singh Vs. Raja Ram & Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 799 to
following effect :
“11. Suffice is to observe that it is well
established that if the owner was aware of
the fact that the licence was fake and still
permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then
the insurer would stand absolved. However,
the mere fact that the driving licence is fake,
per se, would not absolve the insurer.
Indubitably, the High Court noted that the
counsel for the appellant did not dispute that
the driving licence was found to be fake, but
that concession by itself was not sufficient to
absolve the insurer.”
54. In the light of aforesaid proposition of law, R3/New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. cannot be absolved of its statutory &
contractual liability in the absence of cogent evidence to establish
that R2/Harvinder Singh (owner) being aware of fake driving
license had consciously allowed R1/Gurcharan Singh to drive the
vehicle. Respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. being
contractually liable to indemnify the insured under Section
149(1) of M. V. Act shall therefore pay compensation amount
along with interest to injured Sachin.
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 27
55. FINDING : Issue No.2 is decided accordingly by holding
that R3/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. will pay award amount
with interest.
RELIEF
56. In view of aforesaid discussion and observations and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, award
for a sum of Rs.6,82,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs & Eighty Two
Thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of
filing of DAR on 24.12.2016 till notice of deposit under Order
XXI Rule 1 CPC is passed in favour of injured Sachin. The
abovesaid compensation shall be paid by R3/New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.
57. FORM-IVB
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 14.09.2016
2. Name of the injured : Sachin
3. Age of the injured : 22 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Private Job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.11,622/- (minimum wage
of ‘Matriculate’
applicable in Delhi w.e.f.
01.04.2016)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon,
by the injured Haryana
8. Period of hospitalization : 14.09.2016 to 27.09.2016
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 27
9. Whether any permanent : No
disability? If yes, give details.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.4,70,344/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.40,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity -
(vi) Loss of income Rs.46,488/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require -
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and -
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life -
(iv) Disfiguration -
(v) Loss of marriage prospects -
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, -
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed –
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities of loss of –
expectation of life span on account
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 27
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning -
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income - (Income x -
% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.6,81,832/-
rounded off to
Rs.6,82,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 7.5% p.a. from
award the date of filing
of DAR on
24.12.2016 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
17. Total amount including interest Rs.6,82,000/- +
interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date
of filing of the
DAR on
24.12.2016 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
18. Award amount released As per table given
below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given
below
20. Mode of disbursement of the By credit in the
award amount to the claimant(s). SB Account of the
injured
21 Next Date for compliance of the 22.07.2025
award.
58. Award amount with interest shall be deposited by
respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in Account
No.42709452600 of MACT, South West, Dwarka Courts, New
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 27
Delhi at State Bank of India, District Court Complex, Sector-10,
Dwarka, New Delhi (IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code
110002483) through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of award
as per section 168(3) of M.V. Act under intimation to the Nazir of
this court with proof of notice to the claimant/injured and his
counsel.
59. Statement of injured Sachin regarding financial status,
needs and liabilities has been recorded. In view of the said
statement and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the award amount shall be disbursed in following
manner:-
S. Name Status Amount of Release Amount
N Award Amount of FDR
o
1. Sachin Injured Rs.6,82,000/- + Rs.6,82,000/- Nil
interest @ 7.5% with
p.a. from the proportionate
date of filing of interest in
the DAR on MACT
24.12.2016 till Claims SB
notice of deposit Account of
under Order XXI injured
Rule 1 CPC
60. Injured has mentioned details of SB Account
No.0751104000127424 at IDBI Bank, Jhajjar, Haryana (IFSC
Code:IBKL0000751) in his statement recorded on 11.09.2024
and it is requested that cash amount may be transferred in the
said SB Account.
61. Accordingly, Manager, State Bank of India, District Courts
Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to transfer
Rs.6,82,000/- with proportionate interest in SB Account
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 27
No.0751104000127424 at IDBI Bank, Jhajjar, Haryana (IFSC
Code: IBKL0000751).
62. Respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. shall inform
injured/counsel regarding award amount being deposited in
MACT Account through registered post.
63. Copy of award be sent to the Manager, SBI, District Courts
Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi AND Manager, IDBI
Bank, Jhajjar, Haryana (IFSC Code:IBKL0000751) for
information/ compliance.
64. Dasti copy of award be given to Ld. Counsels for injured
and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
65. Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate miscellaneous file
to be listed on 22.07.2025 for filing compliance report.
66. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
Announced in the open Court YOGESH Date:
2025.06.11
on 05.06.2025 16:23:38 +0530
(Tarun Yogesh)
PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
MACT No. 2492/2016 Sachin Vs. Gurcharan Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 27
[ad_2]
Source link