Delhi District Court
Lalit Narayan Gupta vs Daya Chand And Others on 26 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
LD. PO-MACT-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No.819/2021
CNR No. DLSW01-012685-2021
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Lalit Narayan Gupta
S/o Sh. Puran Mal Gupta
R/o RZF-29A, Gali No.41B,
Sadh Nagar-II, Delhi. ... (Petitioner)
Versus
1) Sh. Daya Chand
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
R/o H. No.305, Baprola Village
P.O. Najafgarh South West Delhi-110043. ...(Driver)
2) Delhi Transport Corporation
Legal Manager/Director
C/o Bagdola, Dwarka
Sec-8 Deport, New Delhi-75. ... (Owner)
3) United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Manager C/o E-85, Himalya House,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001. ...(Insurer)
... Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.12.2021
Date of Judgment : 26.07.2025
AWAR D
Preface
1. Application under section 166 & 140 MV Act has been
registered on 20.12.2021 followed by Detailed Accident Report
(DAR) filed on 02.03.2022 which has been tagged with petition
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 1 of 23
seeking compensation for bodily injury suffered in Motor Vehicle
Accident.
Background
2. As gleaned from application read with Final Report under
Section 279/338 IPC, petitioner Lalit Naryan Gupta crossing the
road near Kali Mata Mandir, Palam Village suffered grievous
injury in motor vehicle accident on 17.09.2021 at about 06.40
AM after he was hit by DTC Bus No. DL-1PC-7227 driven at
high speed in rash and negligent manner and his right leg came
under the front wheel of the bus. He was shifted to Bhagat
Chandra Hospital, Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi where MLC No.
2293/21 was prepared and patient was referred to Higher Centre
for treatment.
3. FIR No.376/21 under section 279/337 IPC was registered
at PS Palam Village on 17.09.2021 and site-plan was prepared by
the IO. Respondent Daya Chand (driver) was formally arrested
and released on police bail whereas documents including DL,
RC, Fitness, Permit and Insurance Policy produced by
respondents were verified from concerned authorities. Offending
DTC Bus No. DL-1PC-7227 seized from the spot was released
on superdari after its mechanical inspection and offence under
section 338 IPC was added on the basis of final opinion of
grievous injury. Statement of witnesses were recorded and IO,
thereafter, concluded investigation and prepared DAR which was
filed in Court along with copy of Final Report under section
279/338 IPC.
Defence
4. Respondents Daya Chand (driver) and DTC (owner) have
filed joint reply disputing – (i) accident; (ii) negligence of the
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 2 of 23
driver AND (iii) liability to pay compensation by contending that
offending bus was insured against ‘Third Party Risk’ and
liability, if any, shall be borne by the insurance company.
5. Respondent United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on its part has
admitted policy No. 0411003120P109592576 of vehicle No. DL-
1PC-7227 issued in the name of DTC for the period 23.11.2020
to 22.11.2021 besides reserving its right to raise statutory defence
under section 134(c), 149(2) and all defences under section 170
M.V. Act in case the driver and owner would fail to contest the
case.
Inquiry
6. Following issues were settled on 13.07.2022 and matter
was posted for petitioner evidence.
i. Whether Lalit Kumar sustained injuries in
a motor vehicle accident dt. 17.09.2021 due
to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.
DL-IPC 7227 being driven by respondent
no. 1 Daya Chand and owned by
respondent no. 2 Delhi Transport
Corporation and insured by respondent no.
3 United India Insurance Company Ltd.?
… OPP
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? OPP
iii. Relief.
7. Witnesses examined in support of application seeking
compensation for bodily injury include:
A) PW-1 Lalit Narayan Gupta who has inter-alia deposed
about – (i) grievous injuries suffered in motor vehicle
accident near Kali Mata Mandir, Palam Village on
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 3 of 23
17.09.2021 at about 06.30 AM after he was hit by DTC
Bus No.DL-1PC-7227 driven at high speed in rash and
negligent manner; (ii) treatment at Bhagat Chandra
Hospital, Mahavir Enclave, Delhi, B.M. Gupta Hospital,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi and DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi;
(iii) expenses incurred on medicine, treatment,
conveyance, special diet, attendant charges, etc.; (iv)
monthly income Rs.20,000/- by working as Scrap Dealer
AND (v) general and special damages suffered consequent
to bodily injuries suffered in road accident. He has also
relied upon following documents:
i. Copy of Aadhar Card - PW-1/1;
ii. Copy of MLC - Mark A;
iii. Copy of Discharge Summary – Mark A1;
iv. Copy of Treatment Record – Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly.);
v. Copy of DAR – Ex.PW-1/3.
B) Dr. Vineet Arora, Specialist Orthopedics DDU Hospital,
Hari Nagar, New Delhi being summoned witness
examined as PW-2 has identified his signature at Point ‘A’
upon Disability Certificate Ex.PW-2/1 mentioning that
patient being case of Post-Traumatic Post-Operated Right
Below Knee Amputation has been assessed with
Permanent Physical Disability of 70% (Seventy Percent) in
relation to Right Lower Limb.
8. Cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 by Ld. counsel for
respondents has been recorded and petitioner’s evidence was
closed on 24.10.2024.
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 4 of 23
9. No witness has been examined by the driver, owner &
insurer and respondents’ evidence was closed on 09.01.2025.
Discussion and Conclusion
10. Advocate Sh. Dilip Kumar for injured and Advocate Shri
Dhiru Nigam for United India Insurance Co. Ltd. have addressed
their submissions.
11. I have carefully perused pleadings and evidence adduced
on judicial file. My issue wise finding is recorded below:
12. Issue No.1:
Whether Lalit Kumar sustained injuries in
a motor vehicle accident dt. 17.09.2021 due
to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.
DL-IPC 7227 being driven by respondent
no.1 Daya Chand and owned by respondent
no. 2 Delhi Transport Corporation and
insured by respondent no. 3 United India
Insurance Company Ltd.? … OPP
13. PW-1 Lalit Narayan Gupta in para 2 of affidavit Ex.PW-
1/A has deposed about grievous injuries suffered in motor vehicle
accident near Kali Mata Mandir, Palam Village on 17.09.2021 at
about 06.30 AM after he was hit by DTC bus No. DL-1PC-7227
driven at high speed in rash and negligent manner.
14. Testimony of injured has remained consistent and
following section of cross-examination of PW-1 by Ld. counsel
for insurance company being relevant is extracted below for
reference:
“On the day of incident, I was crossing the
road at Palam Village when the vehicle no.
DL 1PC 7227 had hit me. The bus broke the
signal and had hit me. It is correct that as
per site plan at the place of accident thereMACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 5 of 23
was no traffic signal. (vol. The traffic signal
was there at the distance of 50 meter). It is
correct that there was no sign of zebra
crossing at the place of accident. It is wrong
to suggest that the accident took place due to
my negligence as I had not observed traffic
rules while crossing the road.”
15. Suggestions imputing negligence of injured have been
stoutly denied by PW-1 during his cross examination by Ld.
counsel for respondents driver & owner.
16. Respondents Daya Chand (driver) and DTC (owner) on
the other hand have not entered the witness-box to rebut
allegation of rash and negligent driving of DTC bus resulting in
bodily injuries suffered by Lalit Narayan Gupta whose right leg
came under the front wheel of the bus. 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.
17. Moreover, 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.
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 6 of 23
18. 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….”
19. 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 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.
20. FINDING : Issue No.1 is therefore decided by holding
that grievous injury suffered by Lalit Narayan Gupta in motor
vehicle accident on 17.09.2021 was caused as a result of rash and
negligent driving of DTC Bus No.DL-1PC-7227 by R1/Daya
Chand (driver) which vehicle was registered in the name of
R2/DTC (owner) and insured with R3/United India Insurance Co.
Ltd.
21. Issue No.2
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 7 of 23
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? … OPP
22. Injured Lalit Narayan Gupta having met with an accident
on 17.09.2021 was shifted to Bhagat Chandra Hospital, Mahavir
Enclave, New Delhi where MLC No.2293/21 was prepared
recording ‘Degloving injury over Right Foot’ AND patient was
referred to Higher Centre for treatment. He, thereafter, got
admitted at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi where he was
diagnosed with by Bimalleolar Degloving Injury of Right Foot
and underwent operation for Below Knee Amputation of Right
Foot in course of treatment from 17.09.2021 to 06.10.2021.
23. Injured Lalit Narayan Gupta has been also examined by
the Medical Board, DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi and
assessed with 70% (Seventy Percent) permanent physical
impairment in relation to Right Lower Limb. Quantum of
compensation payable to injured has to be assessed separately
under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.
24. 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,
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 8 of 23
as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello
Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
25. 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.
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.”
26. Heads of compensation under pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages have been further explained by Hon’ble Apex
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 9 of 23
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.
(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.
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 10 of 23
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
27. Injured Lalit Narayan Gupta having suffered Bimalleolar
Degloving Injury of Right Foot in motor vehicle accident was
referred to Higher Centre for treatment and underwent operation
for Below Knee Amputation of Right Foot in course of treatment
at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi from 17.09.2021 to
06.10.2021.
28. No other document has been filed on record or relied in
evidence to show any other injury.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
29. Copy of MLC No.2293/21 – Mark ‘A’ read with Discharge
Summary of DDU Hospital – Mark ‘A1’ would reveal that Lalit
Narayan Gupta having suffered Bimalleolar Degloving Injury of
Right Foot underwent operation for Below Knee Amputation of
Right Foot in course of treatment at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar,
Delhi from 17.09.2021 to 06.10.2021. However, no Medical
Bill/Cash Invoice has been adduced in evidence. Injured Lalit
Narayan Gupta is therefore not entitled to any compensation
under the head Medicine & Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
30. It is assumed that injured Lalit Narayan Gupta having
undergone operation for Below Knee Amputation of the Right
Foot in course of treatment at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi
from 17.09.2021 to 06.10.2021 must have used private
vehicle/hired taxi for undergoing treatment. A sum of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only) is therefore awarded towards
conveyance. Similarly, injured Lalit Narayan Gupta might have
also needed special diet for full and complete recovery from
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 11 of 23
Bimalleolar Degloving Injury of the Right Foot resulting in
Amputation of Right Leg Below Knee. Another sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) is therefore
awarded towards special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
31. Injured Lalit Narayan Gupta having undergone operation
for Below Knee Amputation of the Right Leg must have needed
an attendant to assist him for around 06 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, injured is awarded
Rs.10,000/- x 6 = Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only)
towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
32. PW-1 Lalit Narayan Gupta in para 8 of affidavit Ex.PW-
1/A has deposed about monthly income Rs.20000/- by working
as Scrap Dealer. Injured, nonetheless, during cross-examination
has admitted to have not filed any medical prescription after
17.09.2021 and conceded of having not filed any document
advising bed rest. It is assumed that Lalit Narayan Gupta having
suffered Bimalleolar Degloving Injury of Right Foot resulting in
Amputation of Right Leg Below Knee would have taken around
four months to recover from bodily injuries sustained in road
accident. He is, therefore, awarded Rs.15,908/- x 04 months =
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 12 of 23
Rs.63,632/- (Rupees Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred &
Thirty Two only) towards loss of earning in course of treatment
and recovery from injury on the basis of minimum wage of
‘Unskilled Worker’ applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2021.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
33. 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
34. 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.
35. Injured Lalit Narayan Gupta having suffered Bimalleolar
Degloving Injury of Right Foot in motor vehicle accident
underwent operation for Below Knee Amputation of Right Foot
in course of treatment at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, Delhi from
17.09.2021 to 06.10.2021 and has been assessed with Permanent
Physical Disability of 70% (Seventy Percent) in relation to Right
Lower Limb. He is therefore awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 13 of 23
(Rupees One Lakh only) towards Pain & Suffering AND
additional Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as
damage for ‘Mental and Physical Shock’.
LOSS OF AMENITIES AND LIFE
36. Letter No. F.1(1)/DDU/MB/2023/30565 dated 04.03.2024
assessing ‘70% (Seventy Percent) permanent physical
impairment in relation to Right Lower Limb’ has been proved
as Ex.PW-2/1.
37. Since compensation is to be awarded separately for loss of
future earning capacity so there is no need to award
compensation under the head – loss of amenities or loss of
expectation of life in view of para 15 of the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India titled Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar &
Anr. (Supra).
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME/PROSPECTS
38. Disability Certificate assessing ‘70% (Seventy Percent)
permanent physical impairment in relation to Right Lower
Limb’ has been proved by Dr. Vineet Arora Specialist
Orthopedics DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi who has
identified his signature at point A upon copy of Certificate
referred as Ex.PW-2/1.
39. It is well settled law that percentage of loss of earning
capacity arising from permanent disability will be different from
the percentage of permanent disability and ascertainment of the
effect of permanent disability on the actual earning capacity
would involve three steps as laid down in para 13 of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled Raj Kumar
Vs. Ajay Kumar (Supra).
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 14 of 23
40. What is required to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect
of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured
and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of
percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of
money to arrive at the future loss of earning by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine the loss of
dependency as held in para 11 of aforesaid judgment titled Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (Supra).
41. Since Lalit Narayan Gupta had completed 41 years of age
at the time of accident so considering his age AND avocation,
this Court is of the opinion that 70% (Seventy Percent)
permanent physical impairment in relation to Right Lower Limb
could have resulted in 35% functional disability towards loss of
earning capacity of injured.
42. Loss of future income is calculated as – Rs.15,908/- x
125/100 x 12 x 14 x 35/100 = Rs.11,69,238/- (Rupees Eleven
Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Two Hundred Thirty Eight only)
by applying multiplier of 14 in addition to future prospect @
25% upon Notional Income Rs.15,908/- in terms of principles
laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi,
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
43. Petitioner Sh. Lalit Narayan Gupta is therefore awarded
Rs.11,69,238/- towards loss of future income/prospects.
DISFIGURATION
44. Amputation of Right Leg Below Knee is bound to have
resulted in disfigurement. Petitioner Lalit Narayan Gupta is,
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 15 of 23
therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) for disfiguration.
45. 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 -
2. Conveyance Rs.10,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.30,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.60,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs.63,632/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Loss of amenities of life -
8. Mental & Physical Shock Rs.50,000/-
9 Loss of future income/prospect Rs.11,69,238/-
10. Disfiguration Rs.1,00,000/-
TOTAL Rs.15,82,870/-
rounded off to
Rs.15,83,000/-
INTEREST
46. There is nothing on record to justify withholding interest
on the award amount. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to
granted 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 Lalit Narayan Gupta is therefore awarded
interest @ 7.5% per annum upon award amount Rs.15,83,000/-
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 16 of 23
(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand only) from the
date of filing of petition on 20.12.2021 till notice of deposit
under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC to petitioner/counsel.
LIABILITY
47. R1/Daya Chand being Principal Tortfeasor driving DTC
Bus No. DL-1PC-7227 in rash and negligent manner resulting in
bodily injury suffered in motor vehicle accident and R2/DTC
(owner) being vicariously liable for the act of the driver are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with
interest. However, since offending DTC Bus No. DL-1PC-7227
was insured against Third Party Risk so, R3/United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. being statutorily liable under Section 149 (1)
of M. V. Act shall pay the award amount along with interest to
injured Lalit Narayan Gupta in the absence of any statutory
defence under section 149(2) of M.V. Act.
48. FINDING : Issue No.2 is decided accordingly by holding
that R3/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the award
amount with interest to injured Lalit Narayan Gupta .
RELIEF
49. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion & conclusion and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
award for a sum of Rs.15,83,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
Eighty Three Thousand only) along with interest @ 7.5% p.a
from the date of filing of petition on 20.12.2021 till notice of
deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC is passed in favour of
injured and against all respondents.
50. The above-said compensation amount with interest shall be
paid to injured by R3/United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 17 of 23
51. FORM-IVB
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 17.09.2021
2. Name of the injured : Lalit Narayana Gupta
3. Age of the injured : 41 years (at the time of
accident)
4. Occupation of the injured : Private job
5. Income of the injured : Rs.15,908/- (minimum wage of
‘Unskilled Worker’ applicable in
Delhi w.e.f. 01.04.2021)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : Bhagat Chandra Hospital,
by the injured Mahavir Enclave, Delhi AND
DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar,
Delhi
8. Period of hospitalization : 17.09.2021 to 06.10.2021
9. Whether any permanent : Yes
disability? If yes, give details.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment -
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.60,000/-
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 18 of 23
(v) Cost of artificial limb -
(vi) Loss of earning capacity 35%
(vii) Loss of income Rs.63,632/-
(viii) 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 Rs.50,000/-
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life -
(iv) Disfiguration Rs.1,00,000/-
(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 70% (Permanent
and nature of disability as Physical
permanent or temporary Disability)
(ii) Loss of amenities of loss of –
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 35%
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income – (Income x Rs.11,69,238/-
% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.15,82,870/-
rounded off to
Rs.15,83,000/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 19 of 23
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 7.5% p.a. from
award the date of filing
of petition i.e.
20.12.2021 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
17. Total amount including interest Rs.15,83,000/- +
interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date
of filing of the
petition i.e.
20.12.2021 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
18. Award amont 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 01.09.2025
Award.
52. The award amount shall be deposited by R3/United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. in Account No.42709452600 of MACT, South
West, Dwarka Courts, New 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 the 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.
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 20 of 23
53. Statement of injured Lalit Narayan Gupta 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 of
No Award Amount FDR
1. Lalit Injured Rs.15,83,000/- Rs.5,83,000/- Rs.10,00,000
+ interest @ – with /- with
Narayan
7.5% p.a. from proportionate proportionate
Gupta the date of interest in interest be
filing of the MACT kept in 40
petition i.e. Claims SB FDRs for the
20.12.2021 till Account of period from
notice of injured 1st to 40th
deposit under month in the
Order XXI Rule name of
1 CPC injured with
cumulative
interest.
Total Rs.15,83,000/- Rs.5,83,000/-
54. Injured has mentioned details of Savings Bank Account
No.43809900323 with State Bank of India, District Court
Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi (IFSC Code
SBIN0011566) in his statement recorded on 20.03.2025 and it is
requested that award amount may be transferred in the said SB
Account.
55. Accordingly, Manager, State Bank of India, District
Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to
transfer Rs.5,83,000/- with proportionate interest in SB Account
No.43809900323 with State Bank of India, District Court
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 21 of 23
Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi (IFSC Code
SBIN0011566).
56. Balance Rs.10,00,000/- with proportionate interest in
favour of injured be kept in FDRs to be released in his account
in terms of MACAD Scheme formulated by Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi vide order dated 01.05.2018 and 07.12.2018 in FAO
No.842/2013.
57. Manager of the bank where claimant is having his MACT-
SB Account (hereinafter referred as the ‘petitioner’s bank’) are
directed to release the abovesaid amount to claimant.
All original FDRs shall be retained by the concerned bank,
however, statement containing FDR number, amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be provided to petitioner.
Manager of the concerned bank is directed NOT to permit
premature encashment or loan against FDRs in the name of
petitioner without prior permission of the Court.
Further, the interest on the said FDRs shall be paid
monthly by automatic credit/transfer of interest amount in
aforesaid SB Account of petitioner.
The above-said petitioners’ bank is also directed not to
issue any cheque book and/or debit card to petitioner and if the
same has already been issued, the said bank is directed to cancel
the same and make an endorsement on the pass book that no
cheque book or debit card shall be issued to petitioner.
The above-said bank shall permit petitioner to withdraw
money from the above-said SB Account by means of withdrawal
form.
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 22 of 23
At the time of maturity, the fixed deposit amount shall be
credited in the aforesaid SB Account of petitioner.
58. R3/United India Insurance Co. Ltd. shall inform the
injured/counsel regarding award amount being deposited in
MACT Account through registered post.
59. Copy of this award be sent to the Manager, SBI, District
Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi for
information/compliance.
60. Dasti copy of award be given to Ld. Counsel for injured
and insurance company.
61. Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate miscellaneous file
to be listed on 01.09.2025 for filing compliance report.
62. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally
signed by
TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
Announced in the open Court YOGESH Date:
2025.08.08
15:50:05
on 26.07.2025 +0530
(Tarun Yogesh)
PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
MACT No. 819/2021 Lalit Narayan Gupta Vs. Daya Chand & Ors. Page 23 of 23