Delhi District Court
Tilak Chand @ Ravinder vs Bidesh And Ors on 30 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARUN PRATAP, PO, MACT-02,
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.: 399/23
CNR No. DLSH01-005218-2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Tilak Chand @ Ravinder
S/o Sh. Ram Pal Singh
R/o A-833, Kh. No. 335, Gali no. 11,
Meet Nagar, Mandoli, North Delhi-110093
........ Petitioner/injured
Vs.
1. Sh. Bidesh
S/o Sh. Ram Sanehi
R/o Village Nagla Buu, Post Khiriya Nagar,
Shah, PS Jaitthara, Distt. Aliganj, Etah-207249
.... (Driver)
2. Sh. Yasir Rubber Enterprises
Through Its Proprietor/AR/ Owner
Plot no. B-42, Panchsheel Enclave Bhopura,
Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P.
.... (Owner)
3. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.
1001, LGF, Naiwala, Arya Samaj Road,
Naiwala Karolbagh, New Delhi-110005
..... (Insurer)
... Respondents
Date of institution of claim petition : 24.08.2023
Date of Arguments : 24.07.2025
Date of Award : 30.07.2025
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 1 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:20:23 +0530
Advocates appearing in the case:
For petitioner : Sh. Upender Singh
For respondent no. 1 & 2 : Sh. Absar Ahmad
For respondent no. 3 i.e. insurance Co. : Sh. S K Sharma
AWARD
Vide this award, the Tribunal shall decide the MACT claim petition
bearing no. 399/23, under section 166(4) & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, filed for the petitioner and against the respondents as mentioned in
the memo of parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 03.07.2023, at about
10:30 – 11:00 am, one Tilak Chand @ Ravinder was going to Mohan
Nagar, Ghaziabad, from his house i.e B-157, Main 20 foota road, Near
Subzi Mandi, Delhi, on a motorcycle bearing registration no.
UP81BB-6708. It has been alleged that when he reached at Bhopura Tiraha,
within the jurisdiction of PS Tila Mor, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P., one Eicher
Canter bearing registration no. UP14GT-3916 (hereinafter referred to as
offending vehicle), came at a very high speed and hit the aforesaid
motorcycle of the petitioner with a great force. It has been further alleged
that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no.
1 (R1) herein, at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
without taking necessary precautions at the time of the accident. Allegedly,
above-said Tilak Chand @ Ravinder fell down on the road after being hit by
the offending vehicle and he sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was
thereon immediately taken to GTB hospital, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, where
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 2 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:20:33
+0530
his MLC was prepared vide MLC no. A/855/50/23. An FIR in this regard
was also registered at PS Tila Mor, Distt. Trans Hindon (Commissionerate),
Ghaziabad, U.P. vide FIR no. 392/23, for the offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
The present claim petition thereafter came to be filed in due course on
24.08.2023.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. In their joint WS filed by respondent no. 1 and 2, being the driver and
owner of the offending vehicle respectively, it has been contended that R1
was holding a valid DL at the time of the accident. It has been further
contended that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent no. 3
(R3) i.e. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., vide policy no.
108057/31/23/002621, valid for the period from 16.10.2022 to 15.10.2023,
at the date and time of the alleged accident. However, the respondent no. 1
and 2 denied the averments of the claim petition and prayed for its
dismissal.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, also filed its
separate detailed written statement, wherein it has been admitted that the
offending vehicle was duly insured with the company vide insurance policy
no. 108057/31/23/002621, valid from 16.10.2022 to 15.10.2023, issued in
the name of Yasir Rubber Enterprises i.e. R2 herein. However, it has been
contended that the accident took place due to the sole negligence on the part
of the injured and thus, the insurance company denied its liability to pay the
compensation amount.
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 3 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:20:40 +0530
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by
the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 03.07.2023, as under:-
(i) Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
03.07.2023 at about 10:30 – 11:00 am at near Bhopura Tiraha, within the
jurisdiction of PS Tila Mor, Distt. Ghaziabad, due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle bearing no. UP-14GT- 3916 being driven by respondent
no. 1 on /driver? OPP.
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent
and from whom? OPP.
(iii) Relief. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
5. The evidence in this case was recorded before Local Commissioner
under Rule 150A of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. In order to prove his case,
petitioner examined himself as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the pleadings of the claim petition
and relied upon following documents:
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
01 Ex.PW-1/1 Medical treatment record
(Colly 19 sheets)
02 Ex.PW-1/2 Oriental Quotation of artificial limb issued by Otto
(Colly) Bock Health Care India Pvt. Ltd. in favour of
deponent
03 Ex.PW-1/3 Copy of disability certificate and original medical
(Colly) bills
04 Ex.PW-1/4 Copy of DL of deponent
(OSR)
05 Ex.PW-1/5 Copy of PAN Card of deponent
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 4 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:20:53
+0530
(OSR)
06 Ex.PW-1/6 Copy of Aadhar card of deponent
(OSR)
07 Ex.PW-1/7 Certificate copy of criminal case records
(colly)
He was cross examined and discharged.
6. In order to prove his case, petitioner also examined Sh. Chanderpal
i.e. employer of petitioner as PW2. He deposed that the petitioner was
working with him as a professional driver and he was getting a salary of Rs.
25,000/- per month apart from being provided uniform and food. He
brought on record the following documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1. Ex. PW2/1 Photocopy of RC of bus reg. no.
UP17AT-2019
2. Ex. PW2/2 Photocopy of all India Tourist Permit of bus
bearing registration no. UP17AT-2019
3. Ex. PW2/3 Photocopy of insurance policy of bus reg. no.
UP17AT-2019
4. Ex. PW2/4 Photocopy of RC of bus reg. no. UP17
T-8255
5. Ex. PW2/5 Photocopy of insurance policy of bus reg. no.
UP17T-8255
6. Ex. PW2/6 Photocopy of RC of bus reg. no.
UP22T-7755
7. Ex. PW2/7 Photocopy of insurance company of bus reg.
no. UPU22T-7755
8. Ex. PW2/8 Photocopy of PAN card of deponent
He was cross-examined and discharged.
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 5 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:21:02
+0530
7. In order to prove his case, the petitioner also examined Dr.
Vikramajeet Singh, Sr. Resident from Department of Orthopedics, GTB
Hospital, Delhi as PW-3, who proved the permanent disability certificate of
the petitioner showing 88% permanent locomotor impairment in relation to
left upper limb and left lower limb as already Ex. PW1/3.
He was cross examined and discharged.
8. Petitioner also examined a witness namely Ms. Sakshi from
Prosthetist & Orthotist, Ottobock Health Care Pvt. Ltd. as PW-4 to prove
that petitioner would require an artificial limb on account of amputation.
She relied upon following documents:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
1. Ex. PW4/1 Authority letter
2. Ex. PW4/2 (colly Rehabilitation service proposal/quotation for
2 sheets) artificial limb/prosthesis vide proposal no.
Del/109/04/24
She was cross-examined and discharged.
Respondents’ Evidence
9. The respondents failed to lead any evidence despite sufficient
opportunities being granted in this regard and RE was finally closed vide
order dt. 16.01.2025.
10. Final arguments heard. File perused.
Issue wise findings
Issue no.1
Whether petitioner suffered injuries during the accident occurred on
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 6 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:21:08 +0530
03.07.2023 at about 10:30 – 11:00 am at near Bhopura Tiraha, within the
jurisdiction of PS Tila Mor, Distt. Ghaziabad, due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle bearing no. UP-14GT- 3916 being driven by respondent
no. 1 on /driver? OPP.
11. In an action founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases
and evidence is tested on the touchstone of principle of preponderance of
probabilities. It is well settled that the procedure followed for proceedings
conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that 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 Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand & Ors,
2011 (1) SCR 1906 (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.
12. Herein the present case, the petitioner has examined himself as the
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 7 of 28
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:21:14
+0530
star witness to show that the R-1 being the driver of the offending vehicle
was rash and negligent in his driving of the Eicher Canter, due to which the
petitioner suffered grievous injuries leading to amputation of his leg and
hand. It has been specifically stated by the PW-1 that his motorcycle was hit
by the Eicher Canter being driven by R-1 with a great force from the
backside. The assertion made by the petitioner while deposing as PW-1 has
remained unimpeached. The fact that the R-1 was driving the offending
vehicle at the time of the incident or that the petitioner suffered injuries due
to the incident in question has neither been denied nor even disputed in any
manner by the respondents. The fact that the respondent no. 1 hit the
petitioner with his Canter, while the latter was on his motorcycle and he was
hit from the back side with such a force that he suffered grievous injuries, is
ipso-facto sufficient proof to show rashness and negligence on part of R-1
in driving the offending vehicle.
13. The very fact that R-1 has already been specifically arrayed as an
accused in case FIR No. 392/23, PS Tila Mor (Trans-Hindon,
Commissionerate), for the offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC, is also a strong
circumstance to support the above said testimony of PW-1 on these issues.
At the same time, it is an admitted fact on record that the R1 has been
charge-sheeted in the criminal case pertaining to the incident in question.
The position of law in this regard has been made clear in the case of
“National Insurance Co., Vs Puspha Rana”, 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, wherein it
has been held that filing of Chargesheet is sufficient proof of the negligence
and involvement of the offending vehicle. Similar observations have been
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 8 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:21:30
+0530
made in the case of “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deepak Goel and
Ors.“, 2014 (2) Tac 846 Del, that if the claimant was able to prove the
criminal case on record pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle,
whereby the criminal records showing completion of investigation by the
police and filing of Chargesheet under Section 279/338/304-A/427 IPC
against the driver have been proved, then, the documents mentioned above
are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver was negligent in causing
the accident. Where FIR is lodged, Chargesheet is filed, especially in a case
where driver after causing the accident had fled away from the spot, then
the documents mentioned above are sufficient to establish the fact that the
driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident
particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the
Learned Tribunal.
14. Besides the above, R1 namely Sh. Bidesh and R2 namely Yashir
Rubber Enterprises (through its proprietor) were the best witnesses who
could have stepped into the witness box to challenge the depositions being
made by PW-1 and the petitioner regarding the above accident and its
manner etc., but they have not done so. Therefore, an adverse inference on
this aspect is also required to be drawn against the respondents in view of
the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh, reported in 2009 (3) AD (Delhi) 310.
15. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that the offending
vehicle being driven by R-1 at the relevant time was rash and negligent in
driving thus resulting into grievous injuries being caused to the petitioner on
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 9 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:21:35
+0530
account of rash and negligent act of R1.
16. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to assess the wrongful
act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant time. Admittedly, R-1 has not explained the circumstances under
which his vehicle (i.e. the offending Eicher Canter) hit the scooty of the
petitioner and thus caused grievous injuries to the petitioner. 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 injured or any other such person, 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 neglect and default in driving the offending vehicle at
the relevant time leading to the grievous injuries to petitioner.
17. In view of the medical treatment documents placed on record by the
petitioner, no dispute is left regarding the nature of injuries sustained by
him in the incident in question. Furthermore, perusal of the disability
certificate reveals that the petitioner has suffered 88% permanent locomotor
disability in relation to his left lower limb and left upper limb due to the
injuries suffered by him on account of the rash and negligent act of R-1.
18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal has no
hesitation in hereby arriving at the finding that the petitioner suffered
grievous injuries on his person on account of neglect and default of R-1
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 10 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:21:41
+0530
while driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. The issue at hand is
thus hereby decided against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner
accordingly.
Issue no. (ii)
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP.
19. In view of the finding on Issue no. 1, petitioner Tilak Chand @
Ravinder is entitled to get compensation. However, quantum of compensation
still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins
upon the claim Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation, which appears to be just and
reasonable. As per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or
a bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for the physical
injury : he is compensated for the loss which he suffers as a result of that
injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac 467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
20. The present claim petition pertains to injury and scope of compensation
in injury cases has been considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as
Mr. R.D. Hattangadi v. M/S Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 AIR 755. The
relevant extract is as under:
“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 is capable of being calculated in terms of
money-, whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. InMACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 11 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:21:46
+0530
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may,
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit upto 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 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, discomfort, disappointment,
hardship, frustration and mental stress in life.”
21. Further, in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & another (2011) 1 SCC 343,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India laid down general principles for computation
of compensation in injury cases. The relevant paras of the judgment are
reproduced as under:
5. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the
Act”, for short) makes it clear that the award must be just,
which means that compensation should, to the extent possible,
fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior
to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make
good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as
money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The court or the Tribunal shall have to assess the damages
objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or
fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of
disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not
only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for
the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a
full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which
he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to
earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned.
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 12 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:21:51
+0530
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 to 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.
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 13 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:21:56
+0530
22. As per the medical treatment record pertaining to petitioner/
injured Tilak Chand @ Ravinder, the latter sustained grievous injuries due to
the accident in this case.
Nature of Injuries: As per Disability Certificate No.
168/43/2/2024 dated 15.02.2024 (Vide Registration No. 73/73/01/2024) issued
by GTB Hospital, Delhi, the petitioner / injured Tilak Chand @ Ravinder is a
case of locomotor disability and has permanent locomotor impairment of 88%
in relation to his left lower limb and left upper limb and the said disability is
non progressive and not likely to improve.
Disability, if any: As per the aforementioned disability certificate,
the petitioner suffers permanent physical disability of 88% in relation to left
lower limb and left upper limb. Moreover, the PW3 i.e. doctor from the
medical board which assessed the disability of the petitioner, has deposed that
petitioner cannot walk without support/prosthesis and petitioner will need
an attendant for his day to day activities/requirement for rest of his life.
PW3 further deposed that petitioner cannot work as a professional driver as
his left upper limb and left lower limb were amputated. Therefore, k eeping
in view the said nature of injuries and the permanent disability suffered by the
petitioner as aforesaid, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner will
suffer from a functional disability of 100% and hence, the functional disability
of the petitioner is hereby assessed to be 100%.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
23. In the present case, as per the material brought on record, the petitioner /
injured has undergone entire treatment at GTB Hospital, Dilshad Garden,
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 14 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:22:03 +0530
Delhi where he remained admitted for his treatment from 03.07.2023 to
20.08.2023. The petitioner has also taken subsequent treatment from the OPD
of the same hospital. Further, in regard to the treatment undergone by him,
petitioner / injured Tilak Chand @ Ravinder has deposed that his entire
treatment was from Govt. Hospital i.e. GTB and the treatment in Govt
Hospital in Delhi is free of cost. The petitioner has not even filed any bill for
his treatment at the said hospital nor any particular cost of treatment has been
mentioned in the evidence affidavit by the petitioner. In these circumstances,
the petitioner / injured is not held entitled for any amount towards Medicines
and Medical Treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
24. In the present case, as per the medical treatment record, petitioner /
injured Tilak Chand @ Ravinder has suffered crush injury in his left leg and
left arm and he had to be operated for the same. In these circumstances, the
petitioner / injured must have visited the hospital / doctors for his treatment
and would also have required special diet for certain period to recover from the
injuries sustained in the accident. In the present case, the petitioner must have
undergone treatment for about 10 months from the date of accident as is
apparent from his treatment record. In these circumstances and in view of the
material on record, the petitioner / injured shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.
50,000/- towards conveyance charges for his visit from the hometown to the
various hospitals. Further, in view of the above-said grievous injuries suffered
by him, the petitioner / injured must have needed special diet for a similar
period to have a fast and proper recovery. Hence, the petitioner / injured is
hereby awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards expenses for special diet.
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 15 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:22:09
+0530
LOSS OF INCOME
25. Petitioner Tilak Chand @ Ravinder (PW1) in his deposition has
stated that at the time of accident, he was working as driver with “New
Pankaj Tour and Travels”, Mandoli Extension, New Delhi and that he was
earning Rs. 25,000 per month. To prove this fact, Sh. Chanderpal i.e.
employer of the petitioner was examined as PW2, who proved the
commercial driving license of the petitioner as already Ex. PW1/4. He
deposed that petitioner was working with him as a driver and was earning
Rs. 25,000/- per month, in addition to food and dress, but, it is an admitted
fact by PW2 during his cross-examination that no document or other such
material has been brought on record to prove the said claim. Therefore, in
absence of any documents filed on record to show that the petitioner used to
earn Rs. 25,000/- per month, this Tribunal has assessed the income of
petitioner at parity with minimum wages of ‘skilled worker’ of Delhi
prevalent at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 20,903/- per month as shown by his
driving licence and Aadhar card as Ex. PW1/4 and Ex. PW1/6 respectively.
In these circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner was taking
treatment from hospitals multiple times in relation to his injuries spanning
over 10 months and also considering the nature of injury he would have
taken at least 10 months time for recovery, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.
20,903 X 10 months= Rs. 2,09,030/- under the head Loss of Income during
the treatment.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
26. The petitioner/injured Tilak Chand @ Ravinder has deposed about
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 16 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:22:16
+0530
keeping an attendant and that he spent a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on an
attendant during the time of his treatment for the injuries suffered by him on
account of incident in question. However, neither any attendant has been
examined nor any documentary proof regarding the payment being made to
any such attendant have been brought on record by the petitioner / injured in
this case. Nevertheless, considering the nature of injuries, extensive treatment
and the prolonged recovery period, the petitioner must have required the
services of an attendant for about 10 months. It is pertinent to note that the
petitioner / injured would have also needed an attendant to look after him, even
if the gratuitous services were rendered by the some or the other of his family
members. In the case titled as Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Lalita
(AIR 1981 Delhi 558), it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
that a victim cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous services
rendered by some of the family members. Further, the petitioner must have
spent at least Rs. 10,000/- per month if he had an attendant. In these
circumstances, the petitioner shall be entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rs. 10,000 X 10 months) towards attendant charges.
27. Besides this, as noted above, petitioner would be requiring an
attendant even for future as specifically stated by PW3. The position of the
law regarding calculation of attendant charges in similar cases has been laid
down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as ” Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand“
AIR OnLine 2020 SC 136, wherein it has been observed that “multiplier
system should be followed not only for determining the compensation on
account of loss of income but also for determining the attendant charges etc.MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 17 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:22:21
+0530
The multiplier system factors in inflation rate, rate of interest payable on
lump sum award, the longevity of the claimant and also other issues such as
uncertainties of life. Similarly, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ” Anju Mahajan
vs. Nasir Ali and others” (MAC Appeal No.155/2018 decided on
05.12.2019) has also followed the above said judgment of Apex Court and
laid down that for future attendant charges, multiplier should be applied as
per the age of the petitioner.
In this case petitioner is of age about 37 years at the time of
accident. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
multiplier which would be applicable will be of 15 and the petitioner is held
entitled for future attendant charges on the basis of minimum wages of
“skilled person” of attendant which comes out to be Rs. 37,62,540/-
(Rs.20,903 X 12 X 15).
PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
28. As per the settled law, for assessing the pain and sufferings, the
following factors have to be taken into account:-
(a) Nature of injury (b) Parts of body where injuries occurred (c) Surgeries, if any (d) Confinement in hospital (e) Duration of the treatment
29. In the instant case, the petitioner has suffered 88% permanent physical
disability in his left lower limb and left upper limb including permanent
amputation of his left foot and left hand and the same will render him as 100%
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 18 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:22:27 +0530
disabled person for several jobs and day to day activities of life. Furthermore,
undergoing the operation for the injuries suffered by the petitioner would have
caused him unimaginable pain and sufferings. In these circumstances and in
view of the law laid down in the case titled as Rekha Jain Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. (arising out of SLP (C) No. 5649-51 of 2012), the petitioner
/ injured is entitled to compensation on account of pain and suffering due to
the accident. The pain and sufferings of petitioner / injured cannot be
adequately compensated in terms of money as no amount of money can be
substitute for the lost function of a limb, but nevertheless, a sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- is hereby awarded to petitioner towards the head “pain and
sufferings”.
LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND AMENITIES
30. The petitioner / injured Tilak Chand @ Ravinder has claimed that
he has suffered loss of enjoyment of life and other amenities on account of
the accident. The petitioner / injured was about 37 years old at the time of
accident and has suffered grievous injuries. His permanent disability would
hinder his daily activities as well as his enjoyment of life. Loss of ability to
indulge in physical activity is also likely to adversely affect his overall
health. In these circumstances and in view of the law laid down in the case
titled as Rekha Jain (Supra), the petitioner / injured is hereby awarded a sum
of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards loss of enjoyment of life and
amenities. In addition to this, the petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs.
50,000/- as just and fair compensation for mental and physical shock
suffered by him due to the accident in this case.
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 19 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:22:33
+0530
LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS
31. The petitioner in this case happened to be 37 years 5 months of age
and was already married at the time of the incident. Hence, no compensation is
applicable under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME / PROSPECTS
32. In the present case, as per medical record, petitioner / injured Tilak
Chand @ Ravinder is a case of crush injury of left leg with crush injury of
left arm and has permanent locomotor impairment of 88% in relation to
amputation of left lower limb and left upper limb and has received treatment
for about 10 months. The principles for determining functional disability
resulting from permanent physical impairment have been laid down in the
case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar ((2011) 1 SCC 343). It is noteworthy
that extent of physical impairment cannot automatically be taken to be the loss
of earning capacity. The nature of avocation in which the petitioner was
involved has to be considered. The petitioner in this case happened to be a
driver by profession and it has already been held above that the injuries
suffered by the petitioner would result in 100% functional disability in
pursuing the profession of driving. Hence, the functional disability of the
petitioner is to be taken to be at 100%. Further in terms of the principles laid
down in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017 (13)
SCALE 12), the petitioner is also entitled to future prospects.
AGE: As per his driving licence on record as Ex. PW1/4, the petitioner
was born on 26.01.1986. Thus, at the time of accident, he was about 37
years 5 months old. Further in terms of the principles laid down in the case
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 20 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:22:41
+0530
Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (AIR 2009 SC 2104), a multiplier of 15 would be
applicable to the present case. Hence, he will be entitled to future prospects
@ 40% as he was below 40 years of age at the time of accident and was self
dependent. Therefore, the loss of future prospects / income is calculated as:
Minimum Wages Rs. 20,903/- X 40% (Future Prospects) Rs. 8361.2
Rs. 20,903/- + Rs. 8361.2/- Rs. 29,264.2/-
Rs. 29,264.2 /- X 100% (Disability) Rs. 29,264.2/-
Rs. 29,264.2/- X 12 X 15 (Multiplier) Rs.52,67,556/-
Hence, the petitioner shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.
52,67,556/- under this head.
33. The break-up of compensation that has been awarded to petitioner/
injured Tilak Chand @ Ravinder is tabulated as below:-
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (Rs.)
1 Medicines and Treatment 00.00
2 Conveyance 50,000.00
3 Special Diet 50,000.00
4 Loss of income 2,09,030.00
5 Attendant Charges 1,00,000.00
6 Future attendant charges 37,62,540.00
7 Pain and Sufferings 2,00,000.00
8 Loss of Enjoyment of Life and Amenities 50,000.00
9 Compensation for mental and physical 50,000.00
shock
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 21 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:22:47
+0530
10 Loss of marriage prospects 00.00
11 Loss of future income / prospects 52,67,556.00
Total 97,39,126.00
FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES/ARTIFICIAL LIMB
34. In order to prove his future medial expenses, petitioner examined
PW4 Ms. Sakshi, Prosthetist and Orthotist, Otto Bock Health Care India,
New Delhi. She proved on record that on account of amputation, petitioner
would require an artificial limb for foot and hand. PW4 has produced
proposal/ estimation sheet issued in the name of Tilak Chand who was
examined by PW4 and other panel members of Ottobock on 17.11.2023
vide proposal DEL/109/04/24 and same is Ex.PW4/2. PW4 further states
that the cost of artificial limb would be Rs.10,13,670/- and average life of
artificial limb is approximately 5 years. The said witness also stated that the
patient would require to change artificial limb after every 5 years and it
would be costlier with every passing year as per inflation and company’s
policy. PW4 further deposed that the patient would also need yearly
maintenance of artificial limb which would cost to patient Rs. 35,000/- to
Rs. 40,000/-.
35. However, it is to be noted that the evidence of PW4 is from a
private vendor of artificial limb and the cost of such artificial limb with
annual maintenance is highly exaggerated one and there is no specific basis
about the amount as the requirement of installing artificial limb and the cost
of the same has not been proved by any authenticated source. It is further to
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 22 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:22:54
+0530
be noted that necessity of artificial limb, has not been proved from the
opinion of any medical board of government hospital. PW4 being himself a
vendor, cannot be considered to be an expert witness regarding necessity of
artificial limb.
36. Nevertheless, it is to be noted that evidence of PW4 gets
corroboration by medical treatment record and nature of injuries suffered by
petitioner, it is very much evident from the record that petitioner sustained
an amputation of his left upper limb and left lower limb. In such
circumstances, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that petitioner would
certainly be requiring the artificial limb for living his day to day life. Even
otherwise, the concept of grant of just and fair compensation, also requires
the Tribunal to decide the question of monetary compensation in a manner
to place the petitioner as far as possible to a position where he was even
prior to the accident. No doubt such situation cannot be achieved
completely but given the nature of the injury suffered by the petitioner at
such young age, this Tribunal cannot lose sight of necessity of the petitioner
for artificial limb for his normal and effective living. Therefore this
Tribunal concludes that petitioner is certainly entitled for future cost of
medical expense inclusive of installation of artificial limbs of hand and foot.
In the light of the evidence of PW4, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rs.4,00,000 X
2) is required for artificial limbs. Therefore a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner for artificial limb. As it has come in the evidence
of PW4 that the normal life of such artificial limb is around five years,
therefore since the present age of the petitioner is 37 years, therefore he
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 23 of 28
Digitally
signed by
HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:22:59
+0530
would be required to change the artificial limb in his life time atleast for
five times or more. Hence, the amount of compensation under this head is
being fixed to Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs. 8,00,000 X 5 times).
LIABILITY
37. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay
the compensation amount. The respondent no. 1 Bidesh is the principal
principal tort feasor being the driver of the offending vehicle, while the
respondent no. 2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the offending
vehicle for the acts of his employee i.e. driver. However, it is pertinent to
note that the respondent no. 3 i.e. Insurance Company has specifically
admitted in its written statement that the offending vehicle was duly insured
at the time of accident with respondent no. 3, vide policy bearing no.
108057/31/23/002621, valid for the period from 16.10.2022 to 15.10.2023 .
At the same time, the respondent no. 3/insurance company has failed to
bring on record or to prove any breach of the terms or conditions of the said
insurance policy by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in any manner.
38. Hence, on the basis of entire above stated facts and circumstances and
discussion of evidence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that respondent no. 3
i.e. insurance company, is liable to pay the entire compensation to the
petitioners on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2, without any recovery rights.
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 24 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:23:06
+0530
RELIEF
39. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioner is
hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 97,39,126/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Lakh Thirty
Nine Thousand One Hundred Twenty Six Only) along with interest @ 8%
per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its deposition by the
insurer i.e. respondent no. 3. However, it is directed that the amount of
interim award, if any, shall be excluded from the above amount and
calculations of compensation.
40. In addition to the above amount of Rs. 97,39,126/-, the petitioner is
also entitled to Rs. 40,00,000/- towards future medical expenses, for
artificial limb implants which would be paid to the petitioner subject to
proof of implantation of such artificial limb, cost of the same etc. and such
amount be apportioned from the maximum amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- as
awarded above.
41. It is being made clear that such amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- for
artificial limb would not be granted to the petitioner immediately. Such
amount would be kept for the petitioner separately in PO MACT Account in
a recurring fixed deposit mode and would be disbursed to the concerned
doctor/company which would provide the artificial limb to the petitioner.
This amount would be available to the petitioner only upon installation of
artificial limb and furnishing of proof of installation and the amount would
be straightaway paid, upon moving an application along with necessary
documents as directed. The amount of interest generated by such amount in
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 25 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
PRATAP Date:
2025.07.30
17:23:15 +0530
FDR mode will be provided to meet the increased costs of artificial limbs in
future upon submission of the requisite bills by the petitioner in due course.
42. It is also being made clear that in case the petitioner continues to
live after changing the artificial limb for five times as noted above,
petitioner can apply before this Tribunal even at subsequent stage for taking
the facility of artificial limb even thereafter so that such medical facilities
would always remain available for him during his life time.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONER
43. Finally, out of the aforesaid awarded amount, the petitioner Sh. Tilak
Chand @ Ravinder is hereby awarded Rs. 97,39,126/-, out of which Rs.
90,00,000/- is directed to be kept with UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court
Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171912; IFSC: UCBA0002078 in
MACAD in the form of 180 monthly fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) of Rs.
50,000/- payable in equal amounts for a period of 1 to 180 months in
succession, as per the scheme formulated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
vide order dated 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003, titled as Rajesh Tyagi &
Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. The amount of FDRs on maturity would be
released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account, maintained with UCO
Bank, KKD Branch, Delhi. Remaining amount of Rs.7,39,126/- and the
interest component to be paid by the respondent no. 3 is directed to be released
into his savings account, which can be withdrawn and utilized by him as per
his volition.
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 26 of 28 Digitally signed by HARUN HARUN PRATAP Date: PRATAP 2025.07.30 17:23:20 +0530
44. Furthermore, the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- awarded to the petitioner
towards future medical expenses is hereby directed to be kept in PO MACT
Account in a recurring fixed deposit mode to be disbursed to the concerned
doctor/company which would provide the artificial limb to the petitioner.
This amount would be available to the petitioner only upon installation of
artificial limb and furnishing of proof of installation and the amount would
be straightaway paid, upon moving an application along with necessary
documents as directed. The amount of interest generated by such amount in
FDR mode will be provided to meet the increased costs of artificial limbs in
future upon submission of the requisite bills by the petitioner in due course.
45. The FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid directions, shall be subject to
the following conditions:-
(a) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody
and copies of the same be provided to the petitioner with the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount.
(b) The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the claimant.
(c) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature discharge be allowed on the
fixed deposits without permission of the Court.
(d) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to
claimant / his guardian. However, in case the debit card and /or cheque book
have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement
of the award amount.
(e) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 27 of 28
Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:23:27
+0530
the effect that no cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not
be issued without the permission of the Court.
46. Respondent no. 3, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to
deposit the award amount with interest @ 8% per annum till date with UCO
Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch within 30 days as per above order, failing
which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the
period of delay. Concerned Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court
Branch is directed to transfer the share amount of the petitioner in his bank
account / FDRs as per above-said directions, on completing necessary
formalities as per rules. The Branch Manager, is further directed to keep the
said amounts in fixed deposits in name of this Court in auto renewal mode
every 15 days, till the claimants approach the bank for disbursement, so that
the award amount starts earning interest from the date of clearance of the
cheques. Soft copy of the award be uploaded on official website of Delhi
District Courts i.e. https://delhidistrictcourts.nic.in.
47. Form IV-A and Form-V, in terms of MCTAP, shall be read as part of
the Award. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner and also to
counsel for the respondents/insurance company for compliance. Copy of this
award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank
passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal
Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and
necessary compliance. Digitally signed
by HARUN
HARUN PRATAP
Announced in open Court on this Date:
PRATAP 2025.07.30
17:23:32
30th Day of July, 2025 +0530(HARUN PRATAP)
PO-(MACT-02), SHAHDARA
KKD COURTS/DELHI.
MACT No. 399/23 Tilak Chand @ Ravinder Vs. Bidesh & Ors. Page No. 28 of 28