Delhi District Court
Dar – Nandan Singh vs Dar – Prashant on 18 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER NAIN, PO, MACT,
DISTRICT NORTH -EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
MACT No.: 374/18
DLNE01-004384-2018
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Nandan Singh
S/o Sh. Halat Singh Jalal
R/o H.No. A-54, Gali No. 5,
West Karawal Nagar, Delhi. .....Petitioner
Vs.
1. Prashant Kumar
S/o.Sh Rajpal Singh
R/o Η No. K-15/60B,
Gangotri Vihar,
Ghonda, Delhi. .....Driver
2. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Ram Babu
R/o D-21/1, Bhajanpura,
Gali No. 1, D-Block,
Sanjay Mohalla, Delhi. .....Owner
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. ..... Insurance Co.
... Respondents
Date of institution of claim petition : 16.10.2018
Date of Arguments : 15.07.2025
Date of Award : 18.07.2025
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 1 of 31
AWARD
Vide this award, This Tribunal shall decide DAR bearing no. 374/18
under section 166 & 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the
Investigation Officer and against respondents as mentioned in the memo of
parties.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Brief facts of this DAR are that the petitioner was posted as ASI in
Delhi Police in North-East District and on 14.08.2018 his duty was from
10:00 p.m. to 2:00 am at Road from Khajuri Khas to Water Plant, Main
Wazirabad Road, Sonia Vihar Picket. He alongwith ASI Navratan and Ct.
Pradeep was checking the vehicles at the picket, then at about 10:40 p.m.
one bullet motorcycle bearing no. DL-13-SV-2767 Silver Colour driven by
its driver with negligence and rash driving and high speed, came from
Wazirabad Flyover side and hit him, resulting in serious and grievous
injuries in his both legs. ASI Navratan Singh and Ct. Pradeep also received
injuries. Driver was arrested from the spot itself and his motorcycle was
also seized from the spot by SI Balbir Singh. Injured was removed to LNJP
Hospital in PCR vehicle where his MLC was prepared. Finally, the DAR
came to be filed by the IO on 16.10.2018.
WS / Reply of Respondents
2. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 & 2
i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, wherein it has been
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 2 of 31
submitted that the respondent no. 1 was neither rash nor negligent in his
driving of the offending vehicle. When respondent no. 1 reached near Water
Plaint Main Road, Wazirabad, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, in the meantime some
police officials suddenly struck his wooden stick with the motorcycle of
respondent no. 1 without any prior indication as a result of which the
respondent no. 1 lost his control over his motorcycle and the accident was
caused due to gross negligence on the part of the said police officials and
later on he has been wrongly and falsely implicated in the said case just to
fetch money illegally. It is also mentioned that at the time of accident, the
vehicle of respondent no. 2 was duly insured with the Insurance company
i.e. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. Respondent no. 3 i.e. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., also
filed its separate detailed written statement. The insurance company therein
its WS admitted that Insurance Policy bearing No. 0146488702 was issued
in name of Sh. Sunil Kumar in respect of the vehicle in question and the
same was valid for the period from 18.01.2018 to 17.01.2020.
ISSUES
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by
the ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19.04.2022 :-
(i) Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-13SV-2767 by respondent no.
1 on 14.08.2018 at about 10:40 PM at Water Plant, Main Road Wazirabad,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi? OPP.
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? OPP
(iii) Which of the respondent is liable for payment of compensation to
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 3 of 31
petitioner? OPP.
(iv) Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
5. Petitioner Sh. Nandan Singh examined himself as PW-1. He tendered
his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A, wherein he reiterated the
pleadings of the claim petition and exhibited the following documents:-
Sl. No. Exhibit No. Particulars
01. Ex PW1/1 (colly) Medical treatment records.
(08 sheets).
02. Ex PW1/2 (colly) Medical bills.
(74 sheets).
03. Ex PW1/3 Disability certificate.
04. Ex PW1/4 Copy of Duty identity card of deponent.
05. Ex PW1/5 Copy of PAN Card of deponent.
06. Ex PW1/6 Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent.
07. Ex PW1/7 (colly). Copy of DAR.
In his cross-examination on behalf of Ld. counsel for R-3/Insurance
company, PW-1 deposed that there were around 04 police persons present at
the spot of the accident on the material time. He denied the suggestion that
he was trying to stop the vehicle by coming in the middle of the road. He
further denied the suggestion that accident took place due to his own
negligence. He could not tell the exact amount paid by him for the treatment
taken by him. He admitted that department has paid some amount which is
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 4 of 31
matter of record. He also admitted that she has not placed bills pertaining to
special diet, conveyance and attendant charges. He denied the suggestion
that no such expenses were incurred. He was paying Rs. 400-500/- per day
for the physiotherapy. The bills for physiotherapy were paid by him in cash.
He was attending my official duties. He voluntarily stated that he traveled
to his office by auto. While he was on leave, he was getting his salary
excluding allowances. Now he is getting full salary. He admitted that the
disability does not have any bearing on his current job. He has not placed
the leave records before this Hon’ble Court. He admitted that medical
leaves were not encashed. He had taken 266 days commuted leave from
16.08.2018 to 07.05.2019. He had further taken 47 days earned leave w.e.f
08.05.2019 to 23.06.2019. The entire leaves as stated were taken during the
course of his treatment. He denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained
by him did not arise out of the said accident.
He was cross examined and discharged.
6. Petitioner also examined PW-2 HC Vinit Kumar Chauhan who was
summoned witness in the present case. He was authorized by Sh Ankit
Singh, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police North East Delhi to depose before
this Court.
He produced salary slip of ASI Nandan Singh S/o Late Sh. Hayat
Singh for the month of June 2018, July 2018 and August 2018 alongwith
Form No. 16 for assessment year 2016-17 and 2017-18 and the medical
bills record obtained from HAA Branch of North East District and proved
the same as Ex PW2/A (colly) (08 sheets).
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 5 of 31
He further deposed that ASI Nandan Singh has been transferred to
Yoga Section Provision & Logistic Unit of Delhi Police remaining details
may be asked from DCP P&L Unit.
In his cross-examination on behalf of Ld. counsel for R-3/Insurance
company, PW-2 deposed that the bills forming part of Ex. PW2/A page no.
2 amounting to Rs. 3,29,151/- have been paid by the department from
28.08.2017 to 22.02.2019. He stated that bill amounting to Rs. 1320/- dated
28.02.2017 was paid prior to accident. He could not tell whether there was
any change in the salary structure, of the injured or not. He could not tell
whether there was any loss of pay on account of leaves availed by the
injured during his treatment.
7. Petitioner also examined PW-3 Dr. Binod Kalita who was a
summoned witness in the present case. He deposed that patient Nandan
Singh S/o Sh. Hayat Singh was examined by him and other medical board
members of JPC Hospital. He produced the summoned record i.e. disability
certificate bearing no. 151/DBN/2022/937 dt. 03.03.2022, which was
already Ex.PW1/3. He was one of the board members who issued the
disability certificate. The disability was permanent in nature and disability
is 60% in respect to bilateral lower limbs. The disability has been assessed
as per the norms and guidelines issued by Department of Social Welfare.
He also produced calculation sheet of disability as Ex.PW3/1. He
deposed that patient is not able to squat, climbing stairs, prolong walking
and running.
In his cross-examination on behalf of Ld. counsel for R-3/Insurance
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 6 of 31
company, PW-3 deposed that he could not tell the disability in relation to
whole body. He admitted that he had not treated the patient. He denied the
suggestion that the disability as wrongly assessed and not as per the
guidelines of Govt. of NCT of Delhi. He admitted that patient can do sitting
job.
After examination of witnesses, Ld. Counsel for petitioner closed PE.
Respondents’ Evidence
8. Respondents did not lead any evidence and the respondents evidence
came to be closed vide order dt 16.02.2023.
9. Statement of petitioner was also recorded as per Clause 29 of
MCTAP on 09.06.2023 wherein he stated that he had got injured and
sustained grievous injury in the accident with 60% disability in relation to
his both lower limbs. He had undergone treatment for about eleven months
and fifteen days from the date of accident i.e. 14.08.2018. He has already
filed on record treatment papers. He was working as an ASI in Delhi Police
posted at PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi and was earning Rs. 66,154/- p.m. His
duty ID Card is already Ex. PW1/4.
Photocopy of his aadhar card is Mark A, copy of his PAN card No.
ASIPS4493F is Mark B, two sets of my photographs are Mark C. He has a
bank account in Axis Bank Ltd., Asaf Ali Road, Delhi; Saving Account no.
120010100184601, IFSC No. UPIB0003330. Copy of passbook is Mark D.
10. Final arguments heard. File perused.
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 7 of 31
Issue wise findings
Issue no.1
Whether petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident caused by rash and
negligent driving of vehicle no. DL-13SV-2767 by respondent no. 1 on
14.08.2018 at about 10:40 PM at Water Plant, Main Road Wazirabad, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi? OPP.
11. On this issue, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and testified that
on 14.08.2018 he along with his colleagues i.e. ASI Navratan and Constable
Pradeep were on duty for checking the vehicle at Water Plant, Main Road,
Wazirabad, Sonia Vihar within the jurisdiction of P.S. Khajuri Khas, North
East, Delhi. At about 10:40 p.m., in the meanwhile an offending vehicle
bearing registration No.DL-13SV-2767 (Bullet Motorcycle) which was
being driven by its driver at a very high speed rashly, negligently, without
taking necessary precautions, without proper lookouts, violating the traffic
rules in a zig-zag manner and without blowing any horn came from
Wazirabad Bridge and hit against him, his colleagues ASI Navratan,
Constable Pradeep and then Barricade with great force. As a result of this,
petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and other
multiple injuries. He was immediately taken to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi,
where his MLC No.112181715/18 was prepared by the doctor, where he
was hospitalized from 14.08.2018 to 15.08.2018. Thereafter he was taken
to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi for further treatment,
where he was hospitalized from 15.08.2018 to 15.09.2018. Thereafter he
was again admitted in Max Super Speciality Hospital, where he was
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 8 of 31
hospitalized from 03.11.2018 to 06.11.2018 and thereafter he was again
admitted in hospital from 10.11.2018 to 17.11.2018, where his three
operations were conducted. Thereafter he took his medical treatment as an
outdoor patient for a period of eleven months and fifteen days.
He further stated that he had incurred Rs.6,00,000/-on his medical
treatment, Rs.50,000/-on special diet, Rs.50,000/-on conveyance and Rs.
1,50,000/- on attendant charges.
He further stated that he has received 60% permanent disability in
relation to his both lower limbs in this accident. The disability certificate
was issued by Medical Board of Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital, Shastri
Park, Delhi, as per direction given by this Hon’ble Court. His 60% disability
renders him as 100% disable person for various jobs and day to day
activities of his life.
He further stated that the above said accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving by the driver of motor cycle No. DL-13SV-2767
(Bullet Motorcycle) and an FIR bearing No.413/2018, dated 15.08.2018,
U/S-279/337/338 IPC, PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi was registered in this regard.
Had the motorcycle driver been careful, cautious and vigilant enough this
accident could have been very the deponent easily averted would had been
saved from sustaining such grievous injuries/permanent disability.
He further deposed that FIR No. 1070/2020 u/s 279/337/338 IPC was
lodged at PS Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
12. I may note that during cross-examination of PW1, his testimony
on the aspect of high speed of respondent no.1 could not be shattered in any
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 9 of 31
manner and therefore, the same has to be accepted on its face value itself.
The contents of FIR reveal that the respondent no. 1 was driving the
offending vehicle rashly and negligently at a very high speed and hit the
injured. On perusal of the FIR, I find that registration number of the
offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle finds its clear mention in the FIR. The
mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle clearly reflects the
accidental damages on the headlight of the motorcycle. Site plan of the
place of accident also supports the manner of accident as per version of the
petitioner.
13. Moreover, it is not disputed that respondent no. 1 was charge-
sheeted under Sections 279/338 IPC in the aforesaid criminal case and that
fact further supports the testimony of petitioner (PW1) regarding rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1.
14. Thus, the facts that FIR has been registered and criminal
proceedings have been initiated against the respondent no.1 by the police,
are sufficient proof to conclude that respondent no.1 was negligent.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the
case titled as Shabina v. Satvir & Ors. MAC. APP. 980/17 dated 24.01.2020,
wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that in so far as FIR has been
registered, criminal case has been initiated against driver of offending
vehicle and vehicle was seized, the requirement of proving the
preponderance of probability of accident having been caused by rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle has been established. In the
aforesaid case, Hon’ble Delhi High Court referred to the judgment titled as
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 10 of 31
National Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. (2008)
101 DRJ 645, wherein it was observed:
“12. The last contention of the appellant
insurance company is that the respondents
claimants should have proved negligence on the
part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Meena Variyal: 2007 (5) SCALE 269. On perusal
of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that
the wife of the deceased had produced (i) certified
copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR
No. 955/2004, pertaining to involvement of the
offending vehicle, (ii) Criminal record showing
completion of investigation of police and issue of
charge sheet under Section 279/304-A IPC against
the driver, (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein
criminal case against the driver was lodged; and
(iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection
report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the
deceased. These documents are sufficient proofs to
reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent.
Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin
to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules
of evidence are not required to be followed in this
regard. Hence, this contention of the counsel of the
appellant also falls face down. There is ample
evidence on record to prove negligence on the part
of driver.”
15. Furthermore, there is no challenge from the respondent no.1/
driver of the offending vehicle to the version of the petitioner. The
respondent no.1 was the best witness, who could have stepped into the
witness box to challenge the testimony of the petitioner (PW1) regarding
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 11 of 31
the above accident and its manner but he preferred not to enter into the
witness box during the course of inquiry. Thus, an adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in question
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by him
in view of the law laid down in case of Cholamandalam M.S. General
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kamlesh, 2009(3) AD (Delhi) 310.
16. On perusal of MLC, prepared by LNJP Hospital, Delhi, it is
evident that petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in RTA (road traffic
accident).
17. Besides above, it is settled proposition of law that 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 to be tested
on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be
taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict
rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims
Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011
decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand &
Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
18. Thus, in view of above, this Tribunal finds that there is sufficient
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 12 of 31
material on record to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1 and that
has resulted into grievous injuries to the petitioner. Issue no. 1 is,
accordingly, decided in favour of petitioner.
ISSUE NO. 2 & 3:-
(ii) Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation? OPP
(iii) Which of the respondent is liable for payment of compensation to
petitioner? OPP.
19. In view of the finding on Issue no. 1, petitioner is entitled to get
compensation, however, the 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 petitions pertain 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 asDAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 13 of 31
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. In
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. 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:
4. 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 aDAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 14 of 31
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.
5. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the
following:
Pecuniary Damages (special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the
injured would have made had he not been injured,
comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment.
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-Pecuniary Damages (general damages)
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 15 of 31
(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.
22. In the light of the aforementioned judgments, the compensation to
which the petitioner in injury cases are entitled shall be as under:-
PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
Medical Expenses :
23. Petitioner (PW1) claims to have spent a sum of Rs. 70,084/- on
his medical treatment and has placed on record medical bills Ex.PW1/2
(colly), which pertain to a total sum of Rs. 70,084/- only, incurred on
medicine, investigation, etc. All these bills are in original. Therefore, the
total amount of said bills totaling Rs.70,084/- is granted to the petitioner
under this head.
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 16 of 31
Loss of income during treatment
24. The petitioner/PW-1 testified in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A that he
could not attend his duties for 266 days as commuted leave from
16.08.2018 to 07.05.2019. He had further taken 47 days as earned leave
w.e.f 08.05.2019 to 23.06.2019. The entire leaves as stated were taken
during the course of his treatment.
In order to prove the same PW-2 HC Vineet Kumar Chauhan was
examined who produced the leave record of petitioner which is Ex.PW2/A.
As per which the petitioner was on leave for total 313 days. As per the
salary slip for the month of August 2018, his total salary was Rs. 66,154/-.
As per salary drawn by the petitioner for the month of August
2018, the total salary for 313 days of leave is Rs. 6,90,206/-. In view of
above, the petitioner is being awarded an amount of Rs. 6,90,206/- under
this head.
Loss of future earning due to disability:
25. In case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 343,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India determined the broad criteria for
assessment of permanent disability for ascertaining the purpose of future
loss of earning and also laid down step by step procedure for assessment of
disability and for ascertainment to the effect of the permanent disability on
the actual earning capacity. Relevant paras of the judgment are reproduced
as under:
“9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide
whether there is any permanent disability and if so, theDAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 17 of 31
extent of such permanent disability. This means that
the tribunal should consider and decide with reference
to the evidence:
(i) Whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) If the disablement is permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) If the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is the permanent disability suffered by
the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning
capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain
its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual
extent of permanent disability of the claimant based on
the medical evidence, it has to determine whether such
permanent disability has affected or will affect his
earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps. The tribunal has to first ascertain what activities
of the claimant could carry on in spite of the
permanent disability and what he could not do as a
result of permanent disability (this is also relevant for
awarding compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his
avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out
whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from
earning any kind of livelihood or (ii) whether in spite
of the permanent disability, the claimant could still
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 18 of 31
effectively carry on the activities and functions, which
he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) Whether he was
prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions so that he continues to earn or
can continue to earn his livelihood.”
……If the claimant was a driver or a carpenter, the
actual loss of earning capacity may virtually be
hundred percent, if he is neither able to drive or do
carpentry. On the other hand, if the claimant was a
clerk in government service, the loss of his hand may
not result in loss of employment and he may still be
continued as a clerk as he could perform his clerical
functions; and in that event the loss of earning
capacity will not be 100% as in the case of a driver or
carpenter, nor 60% which is the actual physical
disability, but far less. In fact, there may not be any
need to award any compensation under the head of
‘loss of future earnings’, if the claimant continues in
government service, though he may be awarded
compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of loosing his hand. Sometimes the
injured claimant may be continued in service but may
not found suitable for discharging the duties attached
to the post or job which he was earlier holding, on
account of his disability, and may therefore, be shifted
to some other suitable but lesser post with lesser
emoluments, in which case, there should be a limited
award under the head of loss of future earning capacity
taking note of the reduced earning capacity.
13. We may now summarize the principles
discussed above:
(i). All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising
from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii). The percentage of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be
assumed to be the percentage of loss of earningDAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 19 of 31
capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of
earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of
permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the
Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii). The doctor who treated an injured- claimant or
who examined him subsequently to assess the extent
of his permanent disability can give evidence only in
regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of
earning capacity is something that will have to be
assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence
in entirety.
(iv). The same permanent disability may result in
different percentages of loss of earning capacity in
different persons, depending upon the nature of
profession, occupation or job, age, education and other
factors.”
26. In the instant case, it is evident on record that as a consequence of
injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner suffered 60% permanent
physical disability in relation to both lower limbs. The disability certificate,
bearing no. 151/DBN/2022/937, dt. 03.03.2022, issued by Medical Board of
JPC Hospital, Delhi, has been duly proved on record as Ex.PW1/3 by PW3
Dr. Binod Kalita, clearly reflecting the aforesaid extent of disability. The
disablement and loss of earning capacity are two different aspects and not
substitute to each other and the loss of income has to be seen considering
the profession in which petitioner was engaged at the time of accident.
Petitioner (PW1) has testified that he was getting total salary of
Rs. 66,154/- p.m. from Delhi Police Department and same has been proved
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 20 of 31
by PW-2 HC Vineet Kumar Chauhan. Since the petitioner was availing
Transport Allowance, Ration money, Conveyance allowance, therefore, I
consider his gross salary less Transport Allowance, Ration money,
Conveyance allowance i.e. Rs. {66,154 – (3852+3033+450)}= 66,154 –
7335 = Rs. 58,819/-. Therefore, his income is being assessed as Rs.58,819/-
p.m.
27. Now it is required to be seen that upto what extent the permanent
physical disability suffered by the petitioner would affect his earnings, so
that a just and reasonable compensation may be granted to him under this
head. In the opinion of this Tribunal, with 60% permanent physical
disability in relation to his both lower limbs, a person who was working in
Delhi Police as ASI, would definitely become incompetent to perform his
work. Therefore, he was transferred to Yoga Section Provision & Logistic
Unit of Delhi Police. No doubt that with such level disability of 60%
permanent physical disability in relation to his both lower limbs, petitioner
would not be in a position to perform even his daily chores independently.
He would not be able to walk, run or do any physical activity without
assistance and would not be able to continue his work. Moreover, nothing
contrary has come on record to challenge the disability of petitioner. In the
circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that functional
disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner may be considered to
be 30% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future
income.
28. Further, law is well settled that there should be no departure from
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 21 of 31
the multiplier method in injury cases also [refer: Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul
Dande & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 351]. As per Aadhar Card, date of birth
mentioned as 15.08.1966. Therefore, it becomes clear that on the date of
accident (14.08.2018), petitioner was about 52 years of age.
The petitioner is a police constable employed with Delhi Police
and in para no. 7 of his affidavit, he has testified that due to accident his
future plans and prospects have come to an end. During the course of
arguments, it was vehemently argued by Id. counsel for the Insurance
Company that the petitioner is a government servant employed in Delhi
Police and that he has not suffered any loss of income because of the
disability nor he is likely to suffer any such loss in future even post
retirement as he will continue to receive the same perks and salary which he
was receiving prior to the accident in similar manner like any other
constable in Delhi Police. On the other hand, it was submitted by ld.
counsel for petitioner that the future prospects of promotion of the petitioner
have diminished because of the accident as physical fitness is one of the
requirements for early promotions in police services. He further submitted
that even post retirement it would be difficult for the petitioner to secure
any job / employment in view of the disability that he has suffered and,
therefore, he cannot be denied loss of future income merely because he is a
government servant.
29. Ld. counsel for petitioner in this regard also relied upon judgment
titled as Desh Raj Singh Gautam Vs. Sunil Kumar in MAC Appeal No.
632/2007, dated 20.05.2016 wherein the injured was a regular employee of
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 22 of 31
MTNL and Hon’ble Delhi High Court computed loss of income post
retirement by using the multiplier of 9 (Nine).
30. In light of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
the loss of income of the present petitioner post retirement is also required
to be computed by calculating it with the multiplier of 9 (Nine). The salary
of the petitioner at the time of the accident was Rs. 66,154/- as per his
salary slip. The disability of the petitioner as per the disability certificate
Ex.PW1/3 is 60% in respect of his both lower limbs and the functional
disability of the petitioner, keeping in mind his profession, is adjudged to be
20%. Applying the said functional disability along with multiplier of 9
(Nine), the loss of future income of the petitioner is as under: (66,154 X 12
X 9 X 20/100 = 14,28,926.40/-). Thus, the total loss of future income comes
to Rs.14,28,926.40/- which is so awarded to the petitioner.
Special Diet & Conveyance:
31. The petitioner (PW1) claimed to have spent Rs. 50,000/- on
special diet a but he has not placed on record any supporting document in
this regard and he also claimed to have spent Rs. 50,000/- on conveyance
charges and he has placed documents regarding conveyance charges to the
tune of Rs. 50,000/-towards conveyance charges.
However, the perusal of medical documents of the petitioner
makes it clear that petitioner must have spent reasonable amount of his diet.
Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries as well as nature and period of
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 23 of 31
treatment, an inference can be drawn that petitioner had to spend some
reasonable amount on his special diet for the purpose of early recovery, post
surgery.
32. Further, the medical record filed on behalf of the petitioner makes
it clear that treatment of petitioner was continued even after his discharge
from the hospital and he had to keep visiting the hospital for his further
treatment. Thus, it may be safely assumed that petitioner must have incurred
a substantial amount on transportation for the purpose of making such
numerous visits to the hospital. Also, he had to appear before the Medical
Board for disability assessment. In view of this, I deem it appropriate to
grant a reasonable amount towards conveyance charges.
33. Therefore, his claim for special diet and transportation charges
remains unchallenged. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances
of the case, petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for special diet and
Rs. 50,000/- for conveyance charges. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- is granted to the petitioner under this head.
Attendant Charges:
34. The treatment record reflects that petitioner remained under
treatment even after he was discharged from the hospital as he suffered
permanent physical disability of 60% in relation to his both lower limbs,
which has been assessed by this Tribunal as 20% functional disability of his
whole body keeping in view the work/ job he was doing prior to the
accident. Thus, considering the nature of injury and long duration of
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 24 of 31
treatment, it cannot be ignored that family members of the petitioner would
have rendered their services for providing assistance to the petitioner in his
routine activities due to which their work/job must have been suffered. For
claiming compensation, necessity of employing a professional attendant/
care taker is required and the petitioner should be compensated for the value
of services of the family members and attendant, which has been or would
be necessitated by the wrong doing of the driver. (Refer : Pritam Singh Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co & Ors. MAC. App No. 952/2011, Delhi High Court
& Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. ACJ 1042 Supreme Court of India,
2020). In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- as attendant charges.
NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
Pain & Sufferings, Disfigurement & Loss of Amenities:
35. While discussing the criteria to ascertain the compensation for
pain and sufferings by victim of vehicular accident, observations of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No: 709/02, date of
decision: 02.02.2007 can be considered:
“12. On account of pain and suffering, suffice would it
be to note that it is difficult to measure pain and
suffering in terms of a money value. However,
compensation which has to be paid must bear some
objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
13. The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering
would be:
(a) Nature of injury.
(b) Body part affected
(c) Duration of the treatment.”
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 25 of 31
36. It is further to be noted that during hospitalization the petitioner
had to undergo surgeries for treatment of his fractures and wounds of injury.
Even after discharge from the hospital, he had to make numerous visits in
OPD of hospital for his treatment. Thus, it is clear that petitioner must have
suffered immense pain and suffering during his treatment.
37. Apart from above, it cannot be ignored that petitioner has suffered
disfigurement on account of aforementioned permanent disability in his
both limbs and he is also bound to face difficulties and hindrance to enjoy
the amenities of life to the fullest due to said disability and therefore, he is
entitled to be compensated on account of disfigurement due to disability and
also for loss of amenities.
38. It is relevant to mention here the decision in case of Mohd. Sabeer
v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal
Nos. 9070-9071 of 2022, decided on 09.12.2022, wherein Hon’ble Supreme
Court awarded the compensation to the appellant/ injured on the following
heads, as under:
Pain and suffering – Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Loss of amenities of life – Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Disability – Rs. 2,00,000/-.
In that case, the appellant/ injured had sustained permanent
physical disability of 95% in respect of all four limbs and his functional
disability was assessed by the Tribunal as 30% and subsequently, the
Hon’ble High Court assessed it to be 35%, whereas the Hon’ble SupremeDAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 26 of 31
Court considering the appellant a self-employed, assessed his functional
disability as 60%.
39. In the case in hand, the injured Nandan Singh, who was working
in Delhi Police, sustained 60% permanent physical disability in relation to
his both lower limbs, which has been assessed above by this Tribunal as
60% functional disability of his whole body and therefore, the
aforementioned judgment in case of Mohd. Sabeer (Supra) squarely applies
to this case. Accordingly, petitioner is granted a compensation of Rs.
50,000/- each on account of (i) pain and suffering, (ii) loss of amenities.
40. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner is summarized
as under:-
Sl. No. Head of compensation Amount
1. Medical Expenses Rs. 70,084/-
2. Loss of income during treatment Rs. 6,90,206/-
Loss of Future Earnings Rs. 14,28,926.40
3.
(on account of disability)
4. Special Diet & Conveyance Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Attendant Charges Rs. 1,00,000/-
6. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
7. Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs. 24,89,216.40/-
(round off to
24,90,000/-)
Accordingly, petitioner Nandan Singh is awarded a total
compensation of Rs. 24,90,000/-.
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 27 of 31
Liability and Mode of payment :
41. Now, the question arises as to which of the respondent is liable to pay
the compensation amount. The offending vehicle was duly insured at the time
of accident and the insurance company has contractual and statutory liability to
indemnify the insured. In the instant case, the insurance company has not been
able to prove that any term or condition of insurance policy was breached /
violated by the insured. Consequently, respondent no. 3 / Insurance Company
is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner without
any recovery rights.
Hence, issue no. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of petitioner and against
the respondents.
ISSUE NO.4 / RELIEF
42. In view of the the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioner is
hereby awarded a sum of Rs. 24,90,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakh Ninety
Thousand only) along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of
DAR 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.
RELEASE/APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THE
PETITIONER
43. On 09.06.2023, the statement of petitioner was recorded in terms of
clause of 29 of MCTAP as prescribed by Hon’ble High Court in case titled as
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 28 of 31
“Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors“., FAO No. 842/2003 decided by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 08.01.2021. In the said statement, it was
disclosed that he was getting about Rs. 66,154/- per month. The disability
suffered by the petitioner is 60% permanent disability in relation to his both
lower limbs.
44. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby
directed that out of the amount awarded in favour of petitioner, sum of Rs.
12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs only) be kept in the form of FDRs in the
multiples of Rs.50,000/- each, having maturity date every month i.e. First FDR
of Rs.50,000/- having maturity date after one month of date of deposit, second
FDR of Rs.50,000/- having maturity date two months after date of deposit,
third FDR of Rs. 50,000/- having maturity date after three months of date of
deposit, so on, so forth, having cumulative interest, and the remaining amount
of Rs. 12,90,000/- with corresponding interest accrued till date be released into
his savings bank account bearing no. 20780110201732 in UCO Bank,
Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi as per rules. Copy of PAN No.
ASIPS4493F of petitioner has already been filed on record.
45. All 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.
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 29 of 31
(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
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 the insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed
to deposit the award amount with interest till date with UCO Bank,
Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi bearing account no. 20780110171929;
IFSC: UCBA0002078 within 90 days as per above order, failing which
respondent no. 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a for the period of
delay. Concerned Manager, UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch is directed
to transfer the share amount of the petitioners in their bank account, 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. Form IV-B 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 Respondent no.3 for compliance. Copy of this
award alongwith one photograph each, specimen signatures, copy of bank
passbooks and copy of residence proof of the petitioners, be sent to Nodal
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 30 of 31
Officer of UCO Bank, Karkardooma Court Branch, Delhi for information and
necessary compliance.
47. With these directions, the Claim petition is disposed of. File be
consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
DEVENDER by DEVENDER
Announced in open Court NAIN
NAIN
Date: 2025.07.18
on this 18th Day of July, 2025. 16:08:21 +0530
(DEVENDER NAIN)
PO(MACT), NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
DAR No. 374/18 Nandan Singh vs. Prashant Kumar & Ors. Page No. 31 of 31
[ad_1]
Source link