Delhi District Court
Subham vs Abdul Kadir on 23 August, 2025
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 1 of43
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MACT No. 751/17
CNR No. DLNW01-009813-2017
Sh. Shubham
S/o Late Sh. Sushil Kumar
R/o F-80, DTC Colony,
Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Abdul Kadir
S/o Sh. Abdul Gani,
R/o H.No. 88, Village Bhambal,
Tehsil Jagadhari,
District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
...... Respondent No.1/Driver
2. Bhushan Kalra
S/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash Kalra,
R/o H.no. 121, Purana Hamida,
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana
...... Respondent No.2/Owner
3. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Opposite Hindu Girls College,
Court Road, Jagadhri,
Haryana-135003
...... Respondent No.3/Insurance Co.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.09.2017
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 21.08.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
MACT No. 751/17 Page 1 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 2 of43
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 03.12.2013
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 26.09.2017
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the 26.09.2017
investigating officer to the insurance
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not available on
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan record
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 26.09.2017
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the 26.09.2017
Insurance Company
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 26.09.2017
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No.
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated 26.09.2017
MACT No. 751/17 Page 2 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 3 of43
Officer by the insurance Company.
13. Name, address and contact number of Sh. Ravi Satija,
the Designated Officer of the Insurance Ld. Counsel for
Company. the insurance
company
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Yes
Insurance Company submitted his
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company No
admitted the liability? If so, whether the
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to No Legal Offer
the offer of the Insurance Company . filed
18. Date of the Award 23.08.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 26.02.2019
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 21.05.2025
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
MACT No. 751/17 Page 3 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 4 of43
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner
claimant(s) and the address of the bank savings bank
with IFSC Code account no.
6650081306,
Indian Bank,
Ashok Vihar
Branch, Delhi,
IFSC Code no.
IDIB000A124
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred to as
DAR), was filed in this case on 26.09.2017, with reference
to FIR No. 578/13, U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Saraswati Vihar,
Delhi, in respect of simple hurt, sustained by the petitioner
Shubham, along with other injured, in a road traffic
MACT No. 751/17 Page 4 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 5 of43
accident, on 03.12.2013, at about 3.00 am, at Prembari
Pul, Pitampura, Delhi. The Ld. Predecessor of this
Tribunal, vide order dated 26.09.2017, treated the DAR, as
claim petition U/s 166(4) of the M.V. Act. Subsequently,
chargesheet was filed by the IO, against Abdul Kadir S/o
Sh. Abdul Gani (hereinafter referred to as the driver of the
offending vehicle/Respondent no.1/R1), for the alleged
commission of offence U/s 279/338 IPC, because as per
the opinion on his MLC, the injuries as sustained by him,
was opined to be grievous in nature.
2. The brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR
and documents of the petitioner namely Shubham
(hereinafter referred as petitioner/claimant/injured), are
that, on 03.12.2013, after attending an engagement
function, at Hotel City Park, the petitioner, along with
Amit Jai Singhani, Isha Jai Singhani, Ashok Jai Singhani,
and Meenakshi Jai Singhani, were retuning to their house,
via car, bearing registration no. DL-8CAA-9464
(hereinafter referred to as the victim’s vehicle), and at
about 3.00 am, after passing through Maurya Enclave,
towards Prembari Pul, Pitampura, Delhi, when they were
crossing the road, after the traffic signal turned green, the
victim’s vehicle was hit in the middle, by one truck,
bearing registration No. HR-58A-3558 (hereinafter
referred to as offending vehicle), which was coming from
the side of Azadpur, after violating red light signal. It was
further alleged that at the time of accident, the offending
MACT No. 751/17 Page 5 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 6 of43
vehicle was driven by its driver/R1 Abdul Kadir S/o Sh.
Abdul Gani, at a very high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner and as a result of the said impact, the
petitioner, along with all other occupants of the car
sustained injuries. It was further averred that the offending
vehicle dragged the victim’s vehicle, due to which,
victim’s vehicle got damaged and occupants of the
victim’s vehicle sustained injuries. It was further averred
that after the accident, the petitioner, along with other
injured persons, were taken to Max Hospital, Shalimar
Bagh, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Max Hospital),
where the petitioner was medically examined, vide MLC
No. 2423/2013, as per which, he has sustained grievous
injuries.
3. As per DAR, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was driven by R1, the same was registered in the name of
Bhushan Kalra S/o Sh. Ved Prakash (hereinafter referred to
as owner/respondent no.2/R2) and was insured with
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as
insurance company/R3), vide Policy No. 261701/31/2013/
8581, for the period 14.12.2012 to 13.12.2013.
4. R1 and R2 have filed their joint written statement, wherein
they both raised the defence, that respondents never caused
any accident, as alleged in the DAR. It was further stated
that from the facts on record, it appears that the injured
himself was negligent, in causing the alleged accident and
MACT No. 751/17 Page 6 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 7 of43
the alleged injuries, caused to the injured persons, in the
alleged accident, is due to negligence of the injured Amit
Jai Singhani, as he was driving his vehicle, without
following traffic rules and in a rash and negligent manner.
It was further stated that the IO has obtained signatures of
the respondents, on account of formalities, under
objections of respondents. It was further stated that the
respondent no.1 was holding a valid license and their
vehicle was duly insured with Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., vide policy no. 261701/31/2013/8581, for
the period 14.12.2012 to 13.12.2013.
5. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./R3, has filed written
statement, wherein R3 admitted that the truck bearing
registration no. HR-58A-3558, was duly insured with
R3/insurance company, at the time of the alleged accident,
vide policy no. 261701/31/2013/8581, for the period
14.12.2012 to 13.12.2013, in the name of Bhushan
Kalra/R2. It was further stated that after getting DAR
papers, R3/insurance company got the driving license of
R1 verified from the concerned licensing authority, DTO,
Nagaland, through their investigator and as per the report
of concerned licensing authority, no record has been
found/available, in respect of driving license no.
27466/TV/T/2011, in the name of Abdul Kadir, in their
office, therefore same was not issued by their authority. It
was further stated that after considering the verification
report of the driving license, it stands proved, that the
MACT No. 751/17 Page 7 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 8 of43
driver of said truck, namely Abdul Kadir/R1, was holding
fake driving license, at the time of the alleged accident and
thus, insured/owner has violated/committed breach of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as he has
allowed R1 Abdul Kadir, to drive the said vehicle/truck,
without holding/having a valid and effective driving
license.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated
13.02.2018:-
1. Whether on 03.12.2013 at about 3.00 am, at the red
light of Prembari Pul, one truck bearing registration no.
HR-58A-3558 which was being driven rashly and
negligently by Abdul Kadir, hit the car bearing
registration no. DL-8CAA-9464 and caused injuries to
Shubham? OPP
2. Whether R1/driver of the offending vehicle was not
having valid and effective driving license to drive the
offending vehicle? OPR3
3. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP.
4. Relief.
7. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the
parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading
evidence in support of the same. It is worth while to note
here that there are 5 connected petitions/DARs, arising out
MACT No. 751/17 Page 8 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 9 of43
of the same accident. The petitioner in their respective
petitions, lead their evidence separately but the
respondents’ evidence was consolidated and hence, will be
read together.
8. In support of his petition, the petitioner got himself
examined as PW1, by way of evidence affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. In his evidence, he has placed reliance upon
the DAR filed by the IO, Ex.PW1/1(Colly). His deposition
qua the accident in question, is reiteration of the contents
of the DAR/claim petition. PW1 further deposed that the
present FIR No. 578/13, U/s 279/337/338 IPC, was
registered at PS Subhash Place. He further deposed that he
and other injured persons were immediately taken to Max
Hospital, where he was treated, vide MLC No. 2423/2013.
He further deposed that the said accident was caused by
R1, while driving the truck, bearing registration No.
HR-58A-3558, owned by R2, in a very rash and negligent
manner, at a very high speed, without observing traffic
rules and without caring about the safety of others. He
further deposed that R1 has miserably failed to keep proper
look out and did not observe due care and caution, at the
time of accident. He further deposed that all the facts of
negligence, on the part of R1 are present and invites the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. He further deposed that R2
was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, R1 was
driving the offending vehicle and R3 was the insurer of the
offending vehicle and they all are jointly and severally
MACT No. 751/17 Page 9 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 10 of43
liable to pay the compensation to him.
9. PW1 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
insurance company/R3, which was adopted by Ld. Counsel
for R1 and R2, wherein he deposed that he is educated upto
10th standard. He further deposed that he was studying at
the time of accident. He further deposed that he does not
remember, whether his statement was recorded by the
police or not. He further deposed that he does not
remember, whether site plan was prepared by the police in
his presence or not. He further deposed that he was sitting
in the vehicle/car, on the left rear seat. He further deposed
that the offending vehicle/truck, hit their car in the middle
of the left side. He further deposed that they were coming
from City Park Hotel, at the time of accident. He further
deposed that their car was driven by Mr. Amit Jai Singhani,
at the time of accident and he was shifted by him, to the
hospital after the accident. He denied the suggestion, that
the case accident occurred, due to rash and negligent
driving of victim’s vehicle by Mr. Amit Jai Singhani. He
denied the suggestion, that R1 was not negligent, while
driving the offending vehicle. He admitted that no loss
occurred, regarding his study, due to the case accident. He
denied the suggestion, that Mr. Amit Jai Singhani was in
drunken condition, at the time of accident. He further
denied the suggestion, that he is aware regarding the traffic
rules and regulations. He further deposed that he does not
remember, whether the red light at the traffic signal was
MACT No. 751/17 Page 10 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 11 of43
blinking or not, at the time of accident.
10. In support of his case, the petitioner further examined Mrs.
Isha Jai Singhani as PW2, by way of evidence affidavit
Ex.PW1/A. However, the evidence affidavit has been
wrongly marked as Ex.PW1/A, which will now be read as
Ex.PW2/A. In her evidence, she has placed reliance upon
the DAR, as filed by the IO, already exhibit
Ex.PW1/1(Colly). Her deposition qua the accident in
question, is reiteration of the contents of the DAR/claim
petition. PW2 further deposed that the present FIR No.
578/13, U/s 279/337/338 IPC, as registered at PS Subhash
Place. She further deposed that she and other injured
persons were immediately taken to Max Hospital, where
she was treated, vide MLC No. 2420/2013. She further
deposed that the said accident was caused by R1, while
driving the truck, bearing registration No. HR-58A-3558,
owned by R2, in a very rash and negligent manner, at a
very high speed, without observing traffic rules and
without caring about the safety of others. She further
deposed that she was working as a teacher, with Montfort
School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and was earning a sum of
Rs. 16,000/- per month, at the time of accident. She further
deposed that she was having a bright future. She further
deposed that R1 has miserably failed to keep proper look
out and did not observe due care and caution, at the time of
accident. She further deposed that all the facts of
negligence, on the part of R1, are present and invites the
MACT No. 751/17 Page 11 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 12 of43
doctrine of res ipsa loquitor. She further deposed that R2
was the registered owner, R1 was driving the offending
vehicle and R3 was the insurer of the offending vehicle and
they all are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount to her.
11. PW2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
insurance company/R3, which was adopted by Ld. Counsel
for R1 and R2, wherein she deposed that she does not
remember, whether her statement was recorded by the
police or not. She further deposed that she does not
remember, whether site plan was prepared by the police in
her presence or not. She further deposed that she was
sitting in the vehicle/car, on the right rear seat. She further
deposed that the offending vehicle/truck, hit their car, on
the middle of the left side. She further deposed that they
were coming from City Park Hotel, at the time of accident.
She further deposed that their car was being driven by Mr.
Amit Jai Singhani, at the time of accident and she was
shifted by him, to the hospital, after the accident. She
denied the suggestion, that the case accident occurred, due
to rash and negligent driving of victim’s vehicle by Mr.
Amit Jai Singhani. She further denied the suggestion, that
R1 was not negligent, while driving the offending vehicle,
at the time of accident or that Mr. Amit Jai Singhani was
negligent, due to which, the case accident occurred. She
further deposed that at the time of accident, she was doing
private job, at Mont Fort School, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
MACT No. 751/17 Page 12 of43 Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 13 of43
She admitted that she has not filed any document on
record, to show that she was working at the time of
accident. She further deposed that she had not sustained
any disability, due to the case accident. She denied the
suggestion, that Mr. Amit Jai Singhani was in drunken
condition, at the time of accident. She further deposed that
she was aware regarding the traffic rules and regulations.
She further deposed that she does not remember, whether
the red light at the traffic signal was blinking or not, at the
time of accident.
12. In his defence, R1 got himself examined as R1W1, by way
of affidavit Ex.R1W1/1. He deposed that his original
documents, including his driving license, insurance policy,
fitness, permit and RC of the offending vehicle, have
already been seized by the IO, in the case FIR No. 578/13,
PS Subhash Place. He further deposed that on 03.12.2013,
he was coming from Yamuna Nagar, driving his truck,
bearing registration No. HR-58A-3558, towards Kirti
Nagar, Delhi and at about 2.00 to 2.30 am, when he was
crossing Prembaripul, a car bearing registration no.
DL-8CAA-9464, suddenly came from Maurya Enclave
side and hit his truck. He further deposed that when the car
hit his truck, he came down from his truck and enquired
about the passengers, sitting in the said car. He further
deposed that some minor injuries were found sustained on
the passengers, sitting in the said car, who were taken to
the hospital, by the driver of the said car. He further
MACT No. 751/17 Page 13 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 14 of43
deposed that when he was about to leave the spot, a police
PCR came there and asked him to accompany them to PS
Subhash Place, along with his truck and he obeyed with the
directions of the said PCR officials and went to the police
station with them. He further deposed that after reaching
the police station, he was asked to sign some blank papers,
on the pretext, that they require some information, for
which, they have received the call. He further deposed that
he was further asked to remain present in the police station,
for some more hours. He further deposed that at around
5.00 am, police officials made false allegations against
him, of causing accident, with car bearing registration no.
DL-8CAA-9464 and falsely made him an accused in the
case FIR No. 578/2013. He deposed that the said FIR was
registered against him, on false allegations. He further
deposed that the true facts are that, the car bearing
registration no. DL-8CAA-9464, driven by Amit Jai
Singhani, came suddenly from Maurya Enclave side and
without looking left and right, tried to cross Prembaripul
and hit his truck. He further deposed that it was the
negligence of car driver, due to which, his car hit his truck.
He further deposed that he was driving his truck, at a
normal speed, duly following the traffic rules, having a
valid license and insurance policy, for the relevant period.
He further deposed that the copy of driving license was
duly verified by the police and found proper. He further
deposed that the false case was made against him and he is
not liable to pay any compensation to the
MACT No. 751/17 Page 14 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 15 of43
claimant/petitioner. In his evidence, he has placed reliance
upon the DAR, already exhibit PW1/1.
13. R1W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, wherein he admitted that he is facing criminal
trial in the corresponding criminal matter and he is on bail
in that case. He further deposed that he is permanent
resident of above mentioned address, since birth. He
admitted that since February 2010, he is residing in
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana. He further deposed that he has no
documentary proof, that he was residing in Nagaland, at
any time. He further deposed that he visited Nagaland, in
the year 2012. He further deposed that he does not
remember the name of the authority, however his driving
license was made from Nagaland. He further deposed that
there was a town, with the name of Mandi in Nagaland,
where he used to reside, when his DL was prepared from
there. He further deposed that he does not have any
document, to show that he was ever a resident of said
Mandi Town. He further deposed that the address of Gola
Ghat road, Dimapur, Nagaland, is near to Mandi town and
hence, the said address is mentioned in his driving licence.
He admitted that the name of any house number or name of
the colony etc., where he used to reside at Nagaland, is not
mentioned in it. He further deposed that he does not
remember the documents, which were given by him, to the
authority, at the time of preparation of his Driving License.
He further deposed that he does not remember the house
MACT No. 751/17 Page 15 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 16 of43
no., name of the locality or even name of his landlord etc.,
of Mandi town. He admitted that all his identity proof
documents, including Aadhar card, mentioned his address
of Yamuna Nagar. He further deposed that he does not
remember the amount, he had spent, while getting his
driving licence. He further deposed that he does not
remember, if the said driving licence was prepared through
an agent or was got prepared by himself. He further
deposed that the driving licence for driving private
vehicles, are normally prepared for 15-20 years. He further
deposed that his date of birth is 08.03.1987. He denied the
suggestion, that his driving license as on record, with DL
no. 27466/TV/T/2011, is fake or that despite knowing that
it is fake, he has used it. He further deposed that he was
working as a driver, with Bhushan Kalra/owner of the
offending vehicle, at the time of accident. He further
deposed that he joined as a driver with him in the year
2011 or 2012, with some reference. He further deposed that
he handed over copy of his driving license, ration card,
identity proof, to his employer, while he was kept as a
driver by Mr. Bhushan Kalra and he also took his driving
skill test at that time. He further deposed that he does not
remember the exact date, when his driving skill test was
taken by Mr.Bhushan Kalra. He further deposed that he did
not hand over any of his document, showing that he was a
resident of Nagaland, to him, as it was not asked by his
employer. He further deposed that his driving skill test was
taken by his employer, by asking him to drive a truck. He
MACT No. 751/17 Page 16 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 17 of43
denied the suggestion, that he was working as a driver with
Mr. Bhushan Kalra, prior to November 2011. He further
deposed that he is not aware, if Mr. Bhushan Kalra knows
how to drive a truck. He further denied the suggestion, that
neither he handed over any document to Mr. Bhushan
Kalra, at the time of joining of employment with him, nor
he took his driving skill test. He further deposed that his
driving licence was got prepared by Mr. Bhushan Kalra,
after he joined as a driver with him. He denied the
suggestion, that he and Mr. Bhushan Kalra, both know that
his driving licence is forged and fabricated. He further
deposed that he cannot say by going through the photocopy
of his Driving License on record, whether it bears his
signatures or not.
14. In his defence, R2 got himself examined as R2W1, by way
of affidavit Ex.R2W1/1. In his evidence, he has placed
reliance upon the DAR already exhibit PW1/1. He further
deposed that his original documents, including driving
license of R1, insurance policy, fitness, permit and RC of
the offending vehicle, have already been seized by the IO,
in the case FIR No. 578/13, PS Subhash Place. He further
deposed that he is the owner of the truck, bearing
registration no. HR-58A-3558. He further deposed that R1
Abdul Kadir is his driver and on 03.12.2013, he was going
from Yamuna Nagar to Kirti Nagar, with his loaded truck.
He further deposed that in the morning of 03.12.2013, a
police official from PS Subhash Place, telephoned him and
MACT No. 751/17 Page 17 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 18 of43
asked him to come to the police station. He further deposed
that he was not in a position to come to Delhi and on that
day, he sent his younger brother to Delhi, to meet the said
police official. He further deposed that he also gave SPA in
favour of his younger brother, to do the needful, on his
behalf. He further deposed that after coming to Delhi, his
brother told him that a case of accident has been made,
involving his truck and FIR was also registered against his
driver. He further deposed that on enquiry from his driver,
he told him that a false case has been registered against
him. He further deposed that his younger brother applied
for release of his said truck, in the court and truck was
released on superdari by the court. He further deposed that
his driver was having a valid license, his truck was duly
insured, with all valid documents, for the relevant period.
He further deposed that the driver, before leaving for Delhi,
showed him his valid license and he also tested the driving
of the driver, which was found in order, as per M.V. Act
and thereafter only, he allowed the driver to take the
vehicle to Delhi. He further deposed that a false case has
been made against him and his driver.
15. R2W1 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
petitioner, wherein he admitted that R1 was his driver and
was driving the offending vehicle, at the time of accident.
He further admitted that the offending vehicle was taken on
Superdari, at his instance, by his brother, who was his
power of attorney holder. He further admitted that his
MACT No. 751/17 Page 18 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 19 of43
vehicle was properly insured with Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., at the time of accident.
16. R2W1 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the
insurance company/R3, wherein he deposed that he was
working as a transporter, since about 8 years. He further
deposed that as on date, he has 6 trucks. He further
deposed that he knows how to drive a truck but, he has
driven it only once. He voluntarily deposed that he does
not drive a truck. He further deposed that he has a driving
licence, which is also valid for HTV, however, he has not
brought it on the day of his deposition, as it has been sent
for renewal purposes. He admitted that he resides in
Yamuna Nagar and have given his license, for renewal at
Yamuna Nagar authority only. He further admitted that he
is aware, that residential address of that particular area, is
to be mentioned and documents to that effect, have to be
submitted, before preparing a driving license or even for its
renewal purposes. He further deposed that he is aware, that
a driving licence for HTV is prepared for 3 years. He
further deposed that the private driving licence are
prepared for 20-25 years, however, it depends upon the age
of a person. He further deposed that the private driving
licence is prepared for minimum 5 years however, it
depends upon the age of a person. He further deposed that
he knows English language. He further deposed that he
does not remember the date, when R1 had shown him his
driving licence, before leaving for Delhi, in respect of
MACT No. 751/17 Page 19 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 20 of43
paragraph no.6 of his affidavit Ex. R2W1/A. He voluntarily
deposed that he had seen the copy of driving licence of R1,
had kept its copy and also took the driving skill test of R1,
while employing him as a driver with him and the said skill
test of R1 was taken at Military ground, Jagdhari, Yamuna
Nagar, Haryana. He further deposed that he does not
remember the number of days, prior to the accident but, it
might be 5-7 days, when he saw the driving licence of R1,
while he was leaving for Delhi. He voluntarily deposed that
he used to regularly see the driving license of his drivers.
He further deposed that he had for the first time, seen the
driving license of R1, in the year 2012-13, when he had
employed him, however, he does not remember the date or
month. He further deposed that he did not ask for the
residential proof of R1, of Nagaland, while employing him,
as he knew that in the State of Nagaland, valid driving
licences were prepared of some persons, who were not
even the residents of that State. He further deposed that he
did not ask R1, as to why his private driving licence had
been prepared for less than 5 years. He further deposed that
after going through the copy of driving license of R1 on
record, he can say, that it seems that for private vehicles,
the same is valid for less than 5 years. He denied the
suggestion, that he himself had got prepared the fake and
fabricated driving license of R1, from Nagaland. He further
denied the suggestion, that he did not take any document
from R1, at the time of employing him as a driver with him
or that he did not take any driving test of R1, at that time
MACT No. 751/17 Page 20 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 21 of43
and therefore, he does not remember the exact date or
month of employing R1. He further denied the suggestion,
that he did not know, how to drive a heavy vehicle and that
is why, he has not filed the copy of his driving license, with
his evidence by way affidavit. He further deposed that his
younger brother Subhash Kalra generally looks after the
said transport business and he must have prepared the
payment register etc. of the drivers. He denied the
suggestion, that he was aware that the driving license of R1
was fake, as he had himself got prepared the same. He
further deposed that he did not get any police verification
of R1 done, while employing him as a driver. He further
deposed that he did not get any form etc. filled from R1,
while taking his driving skill test, as it was not required.
17. In its defence, R3/insurance company got examined Ms.
Neelam Rani, Assistant as R3W1, by way of affidavit
Ex.R3W1/A. She has placed reliance upon the documents
i.e the insurance policy of the offending vehicle as
Ex.R3W1/1 (colly), verification report of their investigator
of Driving License of R1 as Ex. R3W1/2, verification
report of DTO as Ex.R3W1/3, notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC
as Ex.R3W1/4, postal receipts as Ex.R3W1/5 &
Ex.R3W1/6, tracking reports as Ex.R3W1/7 &
Ex.R3W1/8, driving license verification report of DTO,
Tuensang, Nagaland, addressed to the PO MACT, North
West as Mark R3W1/X (colly). She further deposed that
the vehicle/Truck bearing no. HR-58A-3558, was insured
MACT No. 751/17 Page 21 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 22 of43
with their company, vide policy no. 261701/31/2013/8581,
valid for the period 14.12.2012 to 13.12.2013, in the name
of Shri Bhushan Kalra. She further deposed that after
obtaining the DAR set in above case, the respondent no. 3
got the driving license bearing no 27466/TV/T/2011, in the
name of the respondent no. 1, verified from the concerned
Licensing Authority/D.T.O Tuensang, Nagaland, through
their investigator Shri Joy Chaki. She further deposed that
as per the report of the concerned LA/DTO Tuensang,
Nagaland, no record of the said Driving License has been
found/available, in respect of Driving License No.
27466/TV/T/201, in the name of Abdul Kadir, which
means that the said Driving License was not issued by their
authority. She further deposed that their counsel Shri Ravi
Satija had sent a legal notice U/o XII Rule 8 CPC, to the
respondent no. 1 & 2 i.e. the driver and the registered
owner/insured of the aforesaid vehicle/Truck no.
HR-58A-3558 and requested them to produce the
Registration Certificate, Original Insurance Policy, Permit,
Fitness Certificate of the aforesaid vehicle and also the
driving license of the respondent no. 1, valid and effective,
at the time of the alleged accident. She further deposed that
the said notice was sent at the correct address of the
respondent no. 1 and 2, which was duly served upon the
respondent no. 1and 2 but, despite of the service of the said
notice, the respondent no. 1 and 2 failed to produce any
other Driving License of the respondent no. 1, valid and
effective, on the date of the alleged accident. She further
MACT No. 751/17 Page 22 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 23 of43
deposed that the respondent no 2 has violated/committed
breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy,
as he has allowed the respondent no. 1, to drive the said
vehicle/Truck, bearing no. HR-58A-3558, without
having/holding valid and effective Driving License, at the
time of the alleged accident, hence, their company i.e. the
respondent no. 3, cannot be held liable, to pay any
compensation to the petitioner.
18. R3W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, wherein she admitted that the date on the report
Mark R3W1/X is 28.10.2010. She voluntarily deposed that
it seems to be a typographical error, as the date should have
been 28.10.2019, which is also reflected in the
accompanying postal envelope. She admitted that the
offending vehicle was validly insured with R3, as on the
date of the accident. She denied the suggestion, that
neither any investigator was appointed by the insurance
company nor any report was filed by him. She further
denied the suggestion, that the documents filed by them,
are forged and fabricated. R3W1 was also cross-examined
by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2, wherein she deposed that
she is not aware, if the original documents of R1 and R2,
including the driving license of R1, R.C, permit, fitness
and insurance policy of the offending vehicle, was lying
deposited in the file of FIR No.578/13, PS Subhash Place.
She admitted that she did not visit for verification of
MACT No. 751/17 Page 23 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 24 of43
Driving License of R1. She admitted that she has deposed
only as per record and does not have any personal
knowledge of Ex. R3W1/2. She denied the suggestion, that
report Ex.R3W1/2 has not been properly verified, by the
insurance company or that the said report is false and
fabricated.
19. During the course of her cross examination, Ld. Counsel
for R1 and R2 has shown copy of document dated
01.05.2015, with respect to verification of the driving
license No.27466/TV/T/2011 of R1, as got done by IO
from DTO, Tuensang, Nagaland, which is part of DAR
Ex.PW1/1 (colly) and the said document was separately
exhibited as Ex.R3W1/R1-X1. She deposed that she is
aware that the said verification was got done by the IO and
is part of record, however the report Ex.R3W1/2 of their
investigator and Mark R3W1/X are correct. She denied the
suggestion, that the report Ex.R3W1/R1-X1 is correct or
that the reports Ex. R3W1/2 & Mark R3W1/X are false.
20. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced
by Learned Counsels for the parties and have carefully
perused the record.
21. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in
support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings
of this Tribunal are reproduced herein below:
MACT No. 751/17 Page 24 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 25 of43
ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 03.12.2013 at about 3.00 am, at the red light of
Prembari Pul, one truck bearing registration no. HR-58A-3558
which was being driven rashly and negligently by Abdul Kadir,
hit the car bearing registration no. DL-8CAA-9464 and caused
injuries to Shubham? OPP
22. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of
probabilities, was upon the petitioner/claimant. For
deciding the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Shubham
and PW2 Isha Jai Singhani, are relevant, being
eyewitnesses, as well as the injured. Both PW1 and PW2
corroborated the testimony of each other and deposed that
on 03.12.2013, after attending an engagement function, at
Hotel City Park, they were going to their house, in car
bearing registration no. DL-8CAA-9464 and at about 3.00
am, after passing through Maurya Enclave, towards
Prembari Pul, Pitampura, Delhi, when they were crossing
the road, after the traffic signal turned green, their vehicle
was hit in the middle, by one truck bearing registration No.
HR-58A-3558, which was coming from the side of
Azadpur, after violating red light signal. They further
deposed that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was driven by its driver/R1 Abdul Kadir S/o Sh. Abdul
Gani, at a very high speed and in a rash and negligent
manner and as a result of the said impact, the petitioner,
along with other occupants sustained injuries. They further
deposed that the offending vehicle dragged the victim’s
vehicle, due to which victim’s vehicle got damaged and all
MACT No. 751/17 Page 25 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 26 of43
the occupants of the victim’s vehicle sustained injuries.
They further deposed that after the accident, the petitioner
along with other injured, were taken to Max Hospital,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, where the petitioner was medically
examined, vide MLC No. 2423/2013, as per which, he has
sustained grievous injuries.
23. Both PW1 and PW2 were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel
for the insurance company/R3, and the same cross
examination was adopted by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2
but, they failed to impeach the credibility of PW1 and
PW2 and failed to elicit any admissions, from the
testimony of PW1 and PW2, so as to prove that the alleged
accident has not taken place, with the offending vehicle.
Further suggestions were also put to PW1 and PW2, that
the case accident occurred, due to rash and negligent
driving of victim’s vehicle by Mr. Amit Jai Singhani or
that R1 was not negligent, while driving the offending
vehicle, at the time of accident but, PW1 and PW2 denied
the said suggestions.
24. In their joint written statement, R1 and R2 have raised the
defence, that the accident has taken place, due to rash and
negligent driving of victim’s vehicle by Amit Jai Singhani,
as the offending vehicle was suddenly hit by the victim’s
vehicle, while crossing Prembari Pul, without looking left
and right, after it came from the side of Maurya Enclave.
Both R1 and R2 lead their respective evidence, by way of
MACT No. 751/17 Page 26 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 27 of43
affidavit Ex. R1W1/A and R2W1/A, in which they both
reiterated their defence but, their oral deposition is
contrary to the criminal case record, as per which,
chargesheet was filed against R1, after investigation, and it
came on record, that the accident has taken place, due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by R1.
25. Further, perusal of the site plan reveals that the place of
accident was crossing way on the ring road, where traffic
signals were installed. The commercial vehicles, like the
offending truck/vehicle, has to take more precaution, while
crossing traffic signals, in night hours, with due care and
precaution and looking at the traffic around them. Perusal
of testimony of PW1 and PW2, reveals that the offending
vehicle hit the victim’s car, in the middle of the left side,
and the said fact also stands corroborated by the
mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, as
per which, fresh damages were found on the offending
vehicle and its front bumper was found dented, front side
extra fitted foot board was found damaged, front side
safety rod was found scratched and front left/side wind
screen glass was broken. Further, as per mechanical
inspection report of the car of the victim, its left side body
and body frame was found damaged, left side both door
and window was found damaged, left side mirror was
damaged, front bumper was dislocated from left side, right
rear body was scratched and dented and front wind screen
glass was broken, which proves that R1 was negligent and
MACT No. 751/17 Page 27 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 28 of43
he was not vigilant enough, to avoid the accident and
rather hit the victim’s car, in its middle portion.
26. Be that as it may, admittedly, the involvement of the
offending vehicle, in the case accident, is not in dispute.
Further, no evidence has been lead by R1, to prove that he
was falsely implicated in this case by the IO, in
connivance with the petitioner or he has ever approached
to any higher authority, with respect to his false
implication, in the present case, therefore, it can be safely
concluded, that the accident in question, in which
petitioner has sustained injuries, as evident from his
treatment record, has been caused, due to rash and
negligent driving, of the offending vehicle by R1.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE No. 2
Whether R1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid
and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle?
OPR3
27. The onus was on R3/insurance company, to prove that
R1/driver of the offending vehicle, was not holding any
valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident.
For deciding the present issue, R3/insurance company has
examined Ms. Neelam Rani as R3W1, who led her
MACT No. 751/17 Page 28 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 29 of43
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R3W1/A, wherein she
deposed that after obtaining the DAR set in the above case,
R3 got the driving license, bearing no 27466/TV/T/2011,
in the name of the respondent no. 1, verified from the
concerned Licensing Authority/D.T.O Tuensang,
Nagaland, through their investigator Shri Joy Chaki and as
per verification, which was prepared on the basis of report
of the concerned LA/DTO Tuensang, Nagaland, no record
of the said Driving License, was found/available, in
respect of Driving License No. 27466/TV/T/2011, in the
name of Abdul Kadir, in their office, which proved that the
said Driving License was not issued by their authority.
R3W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R1 and R2,
wherein she admitted that she did not visit the concerned
LA/DTO, for verification of the driving license of R1. She
further admitted that she has deposed only, as per record
and did not have any personal knowledge, regarding report
Ex.R3W1/2.
28. But, as R3W1 herself admitted that she has not visited the
concerned LA/DTO, for verification of the driving license
of R1 and she did not have any personal knowledge of
Ex.R3W1/2 and R3W1 failed to place on record any
document, to prove that Mr. Joy Chaki, was ever being
appointed by R3, to conduct investigation, therefore, the
alleged verification report, cannot be taken into
consideration and same is hereby discarded.
MACT No. 751/17 Page 29 of43 Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 30 of43
29. Further, perusal of the record reveals that R1 has produced
the said driving license to the IO, who also got the same
verified from DTO Tuensang, Nagaland, by sending Ct.
Amit and the DTO Tuensang, Nagaland has verified and
confirmed in writing, that the said driving license was
genuine and the information was provided as per office
record. The IO has also produced the extracts of case diary,
whereby the license was verified through Ct. Amit, by
visiting the DTO Tuensang, Nagaland. Therefore, on the
basis of the verification report of DL of R1, as annexed
with the DAR, it stands proved that at the time of accident,
R1 was having a valid and effective driving license.
Issue No.2 is accordingly decided in favour of respondent
no.1 and against the respondent no.3/insurance company.
ISSUE No. 3
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?OPP
30. In view of the findings of this Tribunal qua issue no. 1,
regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of
the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner is entitled to compensation, in
respect of medical expenses incurred by him as well as
pain and suffering endured by him on account of injuries
sustained in the case accident. This Tribunal shall now
examine the entire evidence led by the parties, including
the documents of the petitioner, for the purpose of arriving
MACT No. 751/17 Page 30 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 31 of43
at a finding about the quantum of compensation, to which
the petitioner is entitled.
31. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold
an inquiry into the claim to make an award determining
the amount of compensation, which appears to it to be just
and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the
compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza
nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
32. PW1 Shubham, has led his evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the DAR as Ex.PW1/1
(Colly). As per his MLC, he has sustained grievous
injuries. In his evidence, PW1 has placed reliance on his
original medical bills. Perusal of the original medical bills
of the petitioner, reveals that he has incurred aggregate
expenditure of Rs. 5,330/-, on his medical treatment.
Accordingly, in view of the original medical bills, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,330/-,
towards medical expenses. Thus, this Tribunal deems it
appropriate, to award compensation of Rs.5,330/-, to the
petitioner, under the head of medical expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
33. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of
special diet and conveyance, as a result of the injuries,
sustained by him, in the case accident but, the petitioner
MACT No. 751/17 Page 31 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 32 of43
failed to place on record, prescription of any doctor or
medical practitioner or dietitian, containing details of
special diet, such as, nutritional supplements, prescribed to
him, for speedy recovery of the injuries, sustained by him,
in the case accident. He has also failed to place on record,
any transport bills, in respect of the expenditure incurred
by him, on his travel to hospital from his residence and
vice-versa. Further, the petitioner has also not examined
any witness, to prove his expenditure on special diet and
conveyance. Accordingly, the entitlement of the petitioner,
to compensation if any, towards special diet and
conveyance charges, has to be determined, in accordance
with the nature of injuries, sustained by the
petitioner/victim, in the case accident.
34. In this context, a perusal of MLC No. 2423/2013, annexed
with the DAR, reveals that on examination, the doctor
observed that there was tenderness and deformity over
right clavicle region and abrasion over right side of face of
the petitioner and he was advised admission in Orthopedic
but he was not willing to get himself admitted. Record
further reveals that on the day of accident, the petitioner
remains admitted at Parmarth Mission Hospital, Shakti
Nagar, Delhi, for one day and his last medical bill is dated
06.12.2013. Further, his injuries were opined to be
grievous in nature, as per MLC annexed with the DAR.
Therefore, keeping in view the grievous nature of injuries,
as sustained by the petitioner, a lump sum amount of Rs.
MACT No. 751/17 Page 32 of43 Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 33 of43
20,000/-, is granted to the petitioner, as compensation
under this head, including Rs. 10,000/- each, towards
special diet and conveyance respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
35. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that the
petitioner has incurred expenditure, towards attendant
charges. However, perusal of the record reveals that he has
not disclosed the expenditure, incurred by him, on availing
services of a medical attendant, during his treatment
period.
36. Further, perusal of the court record reveals that the
petitioner has neither placed on record any bill, raised by
any agency, from which, he had hired a medical attendant
nor examined the concerned attendant, hired by him or any
employee of the agency, through which, he had hired the
said attendant. However, as discussed above, regarding the
medical condition of the petitioner, as per which, the
injuries sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature,
this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award a lump sum
amount of Rs. 10,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner,
under this head, towards attendant charges.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
37. The petitioner at the time of accident was a minor, aged
MACT No. 751/17 Page 33 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 34 of43
about 15 years, 02 months and 22 days, who had sustained
grievous injuries as per his MLC. Considering the age of
victim i.e 15 years, 02 months and 22 days, in the light of
the fact that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries
and remains hospitalized for one day, the quantum of pain
and suffering of the minor cannot be assessed in monetary
terms, with exact precision however, in order to
compensate the petitioner, the petitioner is being granted
Rs. 30,000/-, on account of pain and suffering.
AGONY TO PARENTS
38. It would be a great mental agony to the parents, to see
their minor child suffering the trauma of an accident, who
has sustained grievous injuries in the accident. As per the
evidence adduced by PW1, at the time of accident, he was
studying in IXth standard. Perusal of the record further
reveals that father of petitioner has already expired and he
was solely looked after by his mother.
39. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to receive
compensation under this head. Thus, in view of the settled
law as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as
Kumari Kiran through Her father Harinarayan vs Sajjan
Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8632 of 2014, date of
decision 11.09.2014, (2015) 1 SCC 539 and of Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in case titled as National Insurance Co.
Ltd. Vs Baby Heena & Ors., MAC Appeal No. 345/2011,
MACT No. 751/17 Page 34 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 35 of43
date of decision 14.03.2016, the petitioner is being granted
Rs. 20,000/- under this head.
LOSS OF STUDIES
40. As per the petition, at the time of accident, the petitioner
was studying in Class IXth standard and it is an admitted
position that the victim was about 15 years, 02 months and
22 days old, at the time of occurrence of case accident.
However, during the course of his cross-examination, he
has admitted that no loss occurred regarding his study, due
to the case accident. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to receive any compensation under the said head
of loss of studies.
41. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be
awarded to the petitioner thus comes to Rs.85,330/- which
is tabulated as below:-
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,330/-
2 Special diet and conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000/-
4. Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
5. Agony to Parents Rs. 20,000/-
6. Loss of studies Nil
Total Rs.85,330/-
( Rupees Eighty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty only)
MACT No. 751/17 Page 35 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 36 of43
42. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the
awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Apex
Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ
48 (SC) had observed that the victims of Uphaar Tragedy
be awarded compensation with interest @ 9% per annum.
The present matter is pending trial since 26.09.2017 and
the rate of interest of fixed deposits in Nationalized banks
has fluctuated/dropped several times during the pendency
of the present proceedings. Therefore, in the interest of
justice, in the present case, this court is of the opinion that
the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest at the
prevailing bank rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of DAR/petition, that is, with effect from 26.09.2017
till realization of the compensation amount.
43. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be
deducted from the above amount, if the same has already
been paid to the petitioners.
LIABILITY
44. In the case in hand, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd./R3
has raised the defence, that as R1 was driving the
offending vehicle, without valid driving license therefore,
R2, by allowing R1, to drive the offending vehicle, has
violated terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as
such, R3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the
MACT No. 751/17 Page 36 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 37 of43
petitioner.
45. The issue qua driving license of R1, has already been
decided in issue no.2 above, wherein it was held that the
driving licence of R1 was genuine as per verification
conducted by the IO and since the offending vehicle was
duly insured, with the insurance company/R3, hence R3 is
liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the
petitioner as per law.
46. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated
16.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and
Ors., R3/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit
the award amount of Rs.85,330/- within 30 days from
today within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal at State Bank
of India, Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi along with interest
at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the DAR till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to
be given by R3, to the petitioner and his advocate and to
show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgment with
the Nazir as per rules. R3 is further directed to deposit the
awarded amount in the above said bank by means of
cheque drawn in the name of above said bank along with
the name of the claimant mentioned therein. The said bank
is further directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit
in its own name till the claimant approaches the bank for
MACT No. 751/17 Page 37 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 38 of43
disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts earning
interest from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
47. Separate statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29
MCTAP was recorded on 21.05.2025 regarding savings
bank account of the petitioner with no loan, cheque book
and ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner and Ld.
counsel for the petitioner/claimant regarding financial
needs of the petitioner and in view of the judgment in the
case of General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas and Others, 1994 (2)
SC, 1631, for appropriate investments to safeguard the
amount from being frittered away by the beneficiaries
owing to their ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible
to exploitation, following arrangements are hereby
ordered:-
48. It is deemed appropriate by this court after hearing
Learned counsels for all parties that maximum amount of
compensation be kept in FDRs and only a very small
amount be released to the claimant. Keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of the case, the statement made by
the petitioner as well as age of the petitioner, it is hereby
directed that on realization of the entire award amount, the
entire award amount of Rs. 85,330/- with upto date interest
MACT No. 751/17 Page 38 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 39 of43
be released to petitioner Shubham in his bank A/c
no.6650081306, Indian Bank, Ashok Vihar Branch, Delhi
i.e. the branch near her place of residence (as mentioned in
statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP).
RELIEF
49. As discussed above, R3/insurance company is directed to
deposit the award amount of Rs. 85,330/- with interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition,
that is, 26.09.2017 till realization within the jurisdiction of
this Tribunal, that is, SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi
within 30 days from today under intimation of deposition
of the awarded amount to be given by R3/insurance
company to the petitioner and his advocate failing which
R3/insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9%
per annum from the period of delay beyond 30 days.
50. R3/insurance company is also directed to place on record
the proof of deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery
of notice in respect of deposit of the award amount in the
above said bank to the claimant and complete details in
respect of calculations of interest etc. in the court within
30 days from today.
51. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to R3/insurance
company for compliance within the granted time.
MACT No. 751/17 Page 39 of43 Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 40 of43
52. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of
non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the
granted time.
53. In terms of directions contained in the order dated
07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi
and Ors vs Jaibir Singh and Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy
of the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to
Mr. Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank
of India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of
Indian Bank’s Association as circulated to the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order
dated 22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) who is the
Nodal Officer with contact details (022-
22741336/9414048606) {other details-Personal Banking
Business Unit (LIMA) 13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan,
Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021}
through email ([email protected]) through the
computer branch of Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the
court is directed to take immediate steps in that regard.
54. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders
passed by the Hon’ble High Court in FAO 842/2003
Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and Ors. vide order dated
12.12.2014.
MACT No. 751/17 Page 40 of43 Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 41 of43
55. In view of the directions contained in order dated
18.01.2018 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no.
842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, joint
statement of petitioner was also recorded on 21.05.2025
wherein she had stated that he was entitled to exemption
from deduction of TDS.
56. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been
attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per
rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy
of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as
Digitally signed
per rules. SHAMA by SHAMA
GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.08.23
13:50:10 +0530Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 23rd August, 2025 P.O. MACT (N/W)
Rohini Courts, DelhiMACT No. 751/17 Page 41 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 42 of43FORM – IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 03.12.2013
2. Name of injured: Shubham
3. Age of the injured: About 15 years, 02 months and 22 days at
the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Student
5. Income of the injured: Nil
6. Nature of injury: Grievous Injury
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: Nil
8. Period of hospitalization: N/A
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: No.
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 5,330/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.10,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.10,000/-
(v) Loss of Income N/A
(vi) Any other loss which may require any N/A
special treatment or aid to the injured
for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
(iii) Loss of Studies Nil
(iv) Agony to parents Rs. 20,000/-
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Nil.
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
MACT No. 751/17 Page 42 of43
Shubham vs Abdul Kadir and Ors. Page 43 of43
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and N/A
nature of disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A
expectation of life span on account of
disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity N/A
in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (Income N/A
X%Earning capacity X Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 85,330/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.50,629.13
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.1,35,959.13 (rounded
off to Rs. 1,35,960/-)
18. Award amount released Rs. 1,35,960/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs N/A
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms
amount to the claimant (s) (Clause29) of clause 29 of MCTAP
21. Next date for compliance of the 22.09.2025
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
SHAMA by SHAMA
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.08.23
13:50:01 +0530
Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 23rd August, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi
MACT No. 751/17 Page 43 of43