Delhi District Court
Vinod (I (Fir56/20/Maurice Nagar) vs Mayank Arora on 26 July, 2025
DLCT010069582020
Presented on : 19-10-2020
Registered on : 23-10-2020
Decided on : 26-07-2025
Duration : 04 Years 09 Months
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO. 483/20
VINOD KUMAR
S/o Sh. Keshri Singh
R/o H.No.422/9, Gali No. 9,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Colony,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. MAYANK ARORA
S/o Sh. Naresh Arora
R/o H.No.1504, Second Floor,
Outram Line, GTB Nagar,
Delhi.(Driver)
2. SAMIKSHA
D/o Sh. Rajesh Kataria
R/o H.No. 1618,Outram Line,
GTB Nagar, Delhi. (Owner) .....Respondents
The particulars as per Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as
under:-
1. Date of the accident 08/08/20
2. Date of filing of Form-I – First Accident Report N.A.
(FAR)MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 1/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:09 +0530
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A.
Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A.
from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII – Detailed Accident 23/10/20
Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer Not
by the Insurance Company mentioned
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the No
Insurance Company submitted his report within
30 days of the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A.
of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 26/07/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place
of residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 23/10/20
directed to open savings bank account(s) near
his place of residence and produce PAN Card
and Adhaar 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) produced the N.A.
passbook of their savings bank account near the
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 2/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:14 +0530
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H.No.422/9,
Claimant(s). Gali No. 9,
Shahid
Bhagat
Singh
Colony,
Karawal
Nagar,
Delhi-
110094
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank N.A.
account(s) is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the N.A.
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION AND PLEADINGS
1. This DAR was filed on 23/10/2020 by the
Investigating Officer in the presence of the parties. The DAR is
related to a motor vehicular accident dated 08/08/2020 in which
one Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Keshri Singh (hereinafter referred
to as “petitioner”) sustained grievous injuries. Subsequent to
filing of DAR, the present petition U/s 166 r/w Section 140 of
M.V. Act was filed on 02/11/2020 seeking compensation to the
tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in respect of grievous injuries sustained
by the petitioner in a road traffic accident which took place on
08/08/2020 at about 10.26 PM at a spot situated near Khalsa
College, Delhi University, Near Bus Stand falling within the
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 3/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:18 +0530
jurisdiction of PS Maurice Nagar. As per this petition, at the
relevant date, time and place, the petitioner was going from his
work place Anand Parbat to his home at Shaheed Bhagat Singh
Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi by a Motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL-5SAQ-5518 and when he reached Khalsa
College, Delhi University, Near Bus Stand in the meantime a
Maruti Swift LXI bearing registration no. DL-8CNB-4942
(hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) which was being
driven by its driver/ respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent
manner and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner from front side. It
is further stated that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries on
his person and the petitioner was rushed to Lok Nayak Hospital,
New Delhi-110002 and from there he was shifted to Central
Institute of Orthopadics VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New
Delhi where he remained admitted and was discharged on
02/09/2020. It is further stated that the accident took place due to
the rash and negligent driving on the part of R-1. As per petition,
the petitioner was 42 years old at the time of accident and was
self employed and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month and he
has sustained permanent disability to the extent of 90% in
relation to his right upper and lower limb and he is unable to do
his day to day activities. An FIR no. 56/20 U/s 279/338 IPC PS
Maurice Nagar was registered by the police with respect to above
accident. R-1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle.
R-2 is stated to be the owner of the offending vehicle. R-1 and
R-2 were directed to file their Written Statements.
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 4/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:22 +0530
2. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of
R-1 and R-2 and which they denied the contents of the petition in
toto.
ISSUES
3. Vide order dated 06/04/2021 the following issues
were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal :-
1.Whether the petitioner Sh. Vinod
suffered injuries in an accident that
took place on 08.08.2020 at about 10.20
PM involving Car bearing registration
No. DL-8CNB-4942 driven by the
Respondent No. 1 rashly and
negligently and owned by the
Respondent No.2?OPP.
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
4. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 in support
of his claim. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein
he described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts
mentioned in Para 1 of this award. He deposed that he sustained
grievous injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at
the relevant time, he was 42 years of age and was self employed
and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month and due to injuries he
has not been able to do his worked till date due to the said
accident and he has sustained permanent disability to the extent
of 90% with respect to his right upper and lower limb. Petitioner
has relied upon the following documents viz:-
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 5/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:26 +0530
“Ex. PW-1/1 (Colly) is DAR;
Ex.PW-1/2(OSR) is copy of Aadhar Card of
PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly) (OSR) are copies of
Aadhar Cards of wife and children of PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/4 has been de-exhited as
Ex.PW-1/11;
Ex.PW-1/5 is the copy of MLC;
Ex.PW-1/6(Colly) is medical bills/ treatment
papers of PW-;
Ex.PW-1/7 (Colly) are photographs of PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly) are photographs of
damaged motorcycle and offending vehicle;
Ex. PW-1/9 is Original lease deed dated
22.08.2019;
Ex.PW-1/10 (Colly) (OSR) the copy of the
date wise miscellaneous expenditure record
and details list till August, 2023 maintained
by petitioner;
Ex.PW-1/11(OSR) is copy of School Leaving
Certificate dated 11/08/1994;
Ex.PW-1/12 (Colly) is original medical
prescriptions and records;
Ex.PW-1/13 (Colly) is additional original
bills;
Ex.PW-1/14 is Original SPA dated 16/09/22
in favour of wife Smt Babita of PW-1;
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 6/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA 12:01:29 +0530
Date: 2025.07.26
Ex. PW-1/15 is disability certificate.”
4.1 PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/
Insurance Company. In his cross-examination he deposed that it
was normal traffic at the time when the accident took place. He
denied the suggestion that at the time of accident it was heavily
rain. He further denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle
did not come from the front side in a zig-zag manner or the
offending vehicle did not come from the front side. He further
denied the suggestion that Mayank Arora was bysitter with the
driver Ridham Kataria. He further denied the suggestion that he
had not seen Mayank Arora getting down from the driver seat of
the offending vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that the
accident happened due to his negligence or that Mayank Arora
was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
5 PE was then closed.
6. R-1 examined himself as RW1 in his defence. He
deposed vide his affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He relied upon the
following documents:
”CD is Ex. RW-1/1 (the said CD relates to three
months prior to the incident showing Rhydham
driving some another car)
Photo of Rhydham is Ex. RW-1/2.”
6.1 RW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
petitioner as well as by Ld. Counsel for R-2. In his cross-
examination he deposed that at time of accident he was going
from Khalsa College to Kamla Nagar. He further deposed that it
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 7/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:33 +0530
is correct that he is facing a State Case bearing FIR No. 56/2020
PS Maurice Nagar. He further deposed that he has never made
any complaint against the IO or the grandfather of the Rhydham
for pressurizing him to give his license to the IO in the instant
case. He further deposed that he has not filed any complaint in
higher authority of SHO regarding his false implication in the
present case. He denied the suggestion that he is liable as he was
driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident or that he
has not raised any such claim or complaint as the accident
happened due to his rash and negligent driving. He further
denied the suggestion that he has falsely impleaded Rhydham
Kataria in this case.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for
parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise
findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
‘”Whether the petitioner Sh. Vinod
suffered injuries in an accident that
took place on 08.08.2020 at about 10.20
PM involving Car bearing registration
No. DL-8CNB-4942 driven by the
Respondent No. 1 rashly and
negligently and owned by the
Respondent No.2?OPP.”
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for
proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 8/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:37 +0530
followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are
required to be established by preponderance of probabilities
only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable
doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of
proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles
Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. As already discussed above, the petitioner examined
himself as PW-1 in order to prove the factual averments
regarding the occurrence of accident. PW-1 has clearly and
categorically stated that at the relevant date, time and place, the
petitioner was going from his work place Anand Parbat to his
home at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Karawal Nagar, Delhi
by a Motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5SAQ-5518 and
when he reached Khalsa College, Delhi University, Near Bus
Stand in the meantime a Maruti Swift LXI bearing registration
no. DL-8CNB-4942 (hereinafter referred to as “offending
vehicle”) which was being driven by its driver/ respondent no. 1
in a rash and negligent and hit his motorcycle from front side. It
is further stated that he sustained grievous injuries on his person
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 9/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:40 +0530
and the petitioner was rushed to Lok Nayak Hospital, New
Delhi-110002 and from there he was shifted to Central Institute
of Orthopadics VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi
where he remained admitted and was discharged on 02/09/2020.
It is further stated that the accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving on the part of R-1. He further deposed that
he was 42 years old at the time of accident and was self
employed and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. He further
deposed that he suffered 90% permanent physical disability with
respect to his right upper and lower limb and he has became
unemployable permanently. Petitioner claims compensation on
account of special pecuniary damage relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicine, transportation, diet, loss of earning
during the period, he was injured, loss of earning during the
period of treatment, loss of future earning on account of
permanent disability, future medical expenses, non-pecuniary
damages, damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of
amenities and loss of expectation of life. PW-1 was subjected to
cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2.
However, he remained consistent and seems to have withstood
the test of cross-examination. He has declined all the
suggestions of respondents imputing the occurrence of accident
to his own negligence. There is nothing on record which betrays
any falsity or untruth in the oral testimony of PW-1. As such, it
could be safely held that the oral testimony of PW-1 is reliable
and trustworthy.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been chargesheeted
for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338 IPC &
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 10/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:44 +0530
146/196 MV Act in the above criminal case/FIR in itself is a
strong circumstance to support the above oral testimony of PW1
and the case of petitioner on this issue. The copies of FIR,
Chargesheet, Site plan, Mechanical inspection report of
offending vehicle, medical papers, Seizure Memos and Arrest
Memo of R-1 also corroborate the testimony of PW-1.
12. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that
at the relevant time, R-1 was driving the offending vehicle a in
rash and negligent manner in a high speed at the relevant time.
In the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any
mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material
depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of the
petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and
circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the
above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty
of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle
at the relevant time.
13. In view of the disability certificate, medical
treatment documents placed on record by the petitioner, no
dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him
in the above accident.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds
that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries on his person on
account of negligence and default of R-1 while driving the
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 11/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:01:47 +0530
offending vehicle at the relevant time. This issue thus stands
decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
15. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and
in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to
be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident,
but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the
same are required to be decided.
16. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of
the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this
tribunal is required to be ‘just’. In the injury cases a claimant is
entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as
well as non-pecuniary damages. The “pecuniary damages” or
special damages are those damages which are awarded and
designed to make good the losses which are capable of being
calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these
damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he
had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries
suffered by him in the accident. The “non-pecuniary” or general
damages are those damages which are incapable of being
assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special
damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant
towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/
attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 12/26 Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26 12:01:51 +0530
pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the
mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities
of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above
categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not
exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to
state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the
injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he
was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to
reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same
place or position where he could have been if the alleged
accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be
assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object
of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him
rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the ‘just’
compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated
objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating
the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under
the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of
permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the
head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and
impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.
Reference in this regard can be made on some of important
judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755,
Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company
Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar &
Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 13/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.26
12:01:55 +0530
17. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount
of compensation which can be considered to be ‘just’ in the
opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
18. The petitioner has placed on judicial file the treatment
records and original medical bills vide Ex. PW-1/6(colly),
Ex.PW-1/12 (colly) and Ex. PW-1/13 (Colly). As per the said
documents, petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of
Rs.3,72,139/-. In the absence of any contest to the said
documents (placed on record by the petitioner), the petitioner is
held entitled to an amount of Rs.3,72,139/- under this head.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
19. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 90% permanent
disability in relation to his right upper and lower limbs. As per
disability certificate no. 1891 dated 16.10.2023 issued by Aruna
Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Delhi, petitioner is a case of ”FUC Of
Brahial plexus injury RT UC with # BB LEG Rt FUC)” and was
found to have sustained 90% permanent physical impairment in
relation to Right Upper and Lower Limb. The aforementioned
certificate was issued in terms of the directions of this Tribunal
vide order dated 24/03/2022. Accordingly, the aforementioned
disability certificate could be read in evidence in terms of the
observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Union of
India in Writ Petition (s) (Civil ) No (s). 534/2020 date of order
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 14/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.26
12:02:00
+0530
16/11/2021. It is not possible to quantify the compensation
admissible to petitioner for the shock, pain and sufferings etc.
which he actually suffered because of the above injuries, but as
stated above, an effort has to be made to compensate him for the
same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence, keeping in view
the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by petitioner and
duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and
sufferings during the said period of his treatment and immobility.
Thus, he is awarded a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- under this
head.
(iii) Loss of income
20. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims
that he was 42 years of age and was self employed and was
earning Rs.40,000/- per month. The medical records placed on
record by petitioner reflect that the petitioner sustained a
grievous injuries which resulted into 90% permanent physical
disability with to Right Upper and Lower Limb. The above
documents are sufficient to uphold the claim of the petitioner to
the effect that he was unable to resume his vocation since the
date of accident. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained
by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that the petitioner
has become unfit for work for rest of his life after the accident
and he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the
injuries. In the absence of any material as to the monthly
earnings of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to assume the
monthly earnings of the petitioner as per the Minimum Wages
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 15/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26 12:02:03
+0530
payable to an Non-Matriculate-Person in Delhi as on the date of
accident. Accordingly, the Minimum Wages admissible to Non-
Matriculate-Person as on 08/08/2020 in Delhi the earnings was
Rs.16,861/-. As such, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of
Rs.1,01,166/- (Rs.16,861/- X 6). The said sum is awarded to the
petitioner under this head.
(iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability
21. Petitioner claimed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that
he has become permanently disabled after the accident and could
not perform his work by resuming his duties. Further he
submitted that he cannot walk and he has to use wheel chair and
an attendant for doing his routine work. As per the disability
certificate Ex.PW-1/15, the petitioner has received 90%
permanent physical impairment with respect to Right Upper and
Lower Limb which is non progressive and not likely to improve
in future. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has become
incapacitated to work and he has to use wheel chair for
locomotion. His condition has not improved since the accident.
His earning capacity has finished and he has to incur regular
expenses on his treatment. He needs to have attendant all the
time to take care of himself. In these circumstances, it can be
safely held that functional disability be considered as 100%.
This Tribunal has already assumed the monthly income of
petitioner to be Rs.16,861/- at the relevant time. As far as the age
of petitioner at the time of accident is concerned, we may look
into the photocopy of petitioner’s Aadhar Card which is Ex.
PW-1/2, as per the said document, the date of birth of petitioner
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 16/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:02:07 +0530
was 04/03/1976. The date of accident is 08/08/2020 Going by
the same, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was
around 44 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also
been upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP
(Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, the multiplier of ’14’ is held
applicable for calculating the loss of future earnings of petitioner
arising out of his above disability. The petitioner is also entitled
to 25% future prospects as per the observations made by a Three
Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Erudhaya Priya Vs.
State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., MANU/SC/0545/2020
[please see para 7 (b)]. Thus, the loss of future earnings of
petitioner due to his above injury and permanent physical
disability comes to Rs.35,40,810/- (rounded off) (Rs.16,861/- X
125/100 X 100/100 X 12 X 14 ) and the same is awarded to him
as compensation under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges and Special Diet
22. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 17/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:02:13 +0530
(vi) Loss of amenities of life and disfigurement
23. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent physical disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 50,000/- each under these heads.
(vii) Future Medical Treatment
24. Since the petitioner has has suffered 90% permanent
physical disability and cannot walk and uses wheel chair for
doing his day to day pursuits and in future he would be needing
medical attention and care and he has to incur a lot of money on
his regular upkeeping/ health care and attendant,therefore,
considering the same a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded
towards his future medical treatment.
Issue No.3/Relief
25. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.49,64,115/-
(Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand One Hundred
and Fifteen Only) (Rs.3,72,139/- + Rs.2,00,000/- +
Rs.1,01,166/- + Rs.35,40,810/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- +
Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/-) along
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the
DAR i.e. 23/10/2020. Since no interim compensation has been
awarded, therefore no deduction is applicable.
RELEASE
26. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs
and requirements.
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 18/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:02:16 +0530
26.1 Out of the awarded amount, Petitioner is awarded a
sum of Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) and the said
amount is directed to be kept with State Bank of India, Branch
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in MACAD in the form of 200
monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) payable in equal amounts
for a period of 1 to 200 months in succession, as per the scheme
formulated by Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial no. 35, 36 of Procedure for
Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
The amount of FDRs on maturity would be released in his
savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and when he furnishes
the details of his bank account which is near the place of his
residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the Civil Nazir of this
Tribunal. The remaining amount of Rs.10,86,274/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Four
Only) is also directed to be released into his above said account,
which can be withdrawn and utilized by the Petitioner.
27. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be
added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of
the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the
petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and
not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 19/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:02:21 +0530
FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their
residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission
of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
28. The plea was raised on behalf of R-1 that he was
not at wheel at the time of accident and he has been falsely
implicated in the case by the maternal grand-father of Rhythm
and the IO. The said plea is patently unbelievable as there has
been no evidence to substantiate the same. As a matter of fact
R-1 is an educated person and it is difficult to believe that he has
been falsely implicated in the case. He never filed any protest
against the said act of IO and maternal grand-father and Rhythm
before any authority or Court. Therefore, same is an attempt to
somehow confuse the Tribunal to escape liability. The facts and
circumstances categorically indicate that the R-1 was driving the
vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident due to his
rashness and negligence.
28.1 R-1 being the driver and principal tortfeasor and R-2
being owner of the said vehicle, and also being vicariously liable
for the acts of R-1, are jointly and severally liable to pay the
awarded amount of compensation to petitioner. R-1 & R-2 are
directed to deposit the above award amount within 30 days from
the date of this Award by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the
account of this Tribunal maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts,
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 20/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:02:25 +0530
Delhi (account holder’s name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
02 Central, A/C No. 40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726)
under intimation to the petitioner/ injured and this Tribunal in
terms of the format for remittance of compensation as provided
in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh, 2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913
(and reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the orders dated
16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021 titled as Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors) along with
interest @ 9% per annum till the deposit of the compensation as
awarded, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest at the
rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.
29. A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the
parties free of cost. Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of
the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate 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)]. Further Nazir is directed to maintain the
record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth
Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of
Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A).
30. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy
of the award to the insurer as directed by the 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 &
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 21/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:02:29 +0530
Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated
copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts
for information.
31. Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the
directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC
APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021
regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
up the same on 26.08.2025. PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.26
12:02:34 +0530Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
on this 26.07.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI
FORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 08/08/2020
2. Name of the injured : Sh. Vinod Kumar
3. Age of the injured : 44 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Self-employed
5. Income of the injured : Rs.16,861/- as per
minimum wages of
a Non-MatriculateMACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 22/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:02:39 +0530
Person
prevailing in Delhi
at the relevant time
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken
by injured : Differnt Hospitals
8. Period of Hospitalization : Different Periods
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? If yes, give details : YES
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.3,72,139/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.50,000/-
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 23/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.26
12:02:44 +0530
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.1,01,166/-
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.50,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 24/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.26
12:02:48 +0530
(vi) Loss of earning, Rs.5,00,000/-
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 90% w.r.t. Right Upper and
assessed and nature of Lower Limb
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disability100%
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – Rs.35,40,810/-
(Income x % Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL Rs.49,64,115/-
COMPENSATION
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. PageDigitally
No. 25/26signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.26
12:02:54 +0530
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.21,22,159/-(rounded off)
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.70,86,274/-
interest
18. Award amount released Rs.10,86,274/-
19. Award amount kept in As per award
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant(s)
21. Next date for compliance of 26.08.2025
the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 26.07.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with
directions to put up the same on 26.08.2025.
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:03:01 +0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/26/07/2025
MACT No. 483/20 Vinod Kumar Vs. Mayank Arora & Ors. Page No. 26/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.26
12:03:04 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link