Delhi District Court
Kiran Dang vs Satvir on 28 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 892/2018
FIR no. 245/2018
PS: Bahadrabad, Haridwar, Uttar Pradesh.
U/s 279/337/304A IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-007655-2018
Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors.
(Case of Injured Kiran Dang)
1. Kiran Dang
W/O Sh. Kishore Kumar Dang
R/o C-76, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi -24.
...Claimant
Versus
1. Satvir
S/o Sh. Girraj
R/o Vill. Kirsoli, PO/PS Kirsoli,
Tehsil Iglas, Distt. Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
..... Driver / R-1
2. Vikrant Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Lakhan Singh
R/o Vill. & PO- Khedi, Gautam Budh Nagar
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 1 of 24
Uttar Pradesh.
..... Owner/ R-2
3. M/s Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
202-2023, 2nd Floor, Suneja Tower-1,
Prof. Jogender Singh Marg, Janakpuri Distt. Center,
New Delhi-58.
..... Insurance Company/R-2
Date of accident : 10.06.2018
Date of filing of petition : 15.09.2018
Date of Decision : 28.07.2025
AWARD
1. Claim Petition:
1(a) In this case, claim petition under Section 166 and 140 M.V.
Act was filed on 15.09.2018 by Smt. Kiran Dang, (hereinafter
called the injured /claimant) on account of injury sustained by her
allegedly in an accident which took place on 10.06.2018 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 16DT 1656
(hereinafter referred as Offending Vehicle), driven by Sh. Satvir
(hereinafter referred as R-1), owned by Sh. Vikran Chaudhary
(hereinafter called R-2) and insured with M/s Shriram Gen. Ins.
Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as R-3).
2. BRIEF FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE PETITION:
2(a). On 10.06.2018 at about 04.00 AM, enroute Delhi to
Haridwar, near Kaur College, Uttar Pradesh, claimant Kiran
Dang, along with her husband Late Sh. Kishore Kumar Dang and
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 2 of 24
other family members including Madhu Bangia, Suraj, Shaily
Nangoa and others travelling in an Omni Bus/ Force Motors /
Travellers bearing Reg. No. UP 16BT 1656 went off the road due
to speedy and rash driving and turned turtle upon falling in the
ditch, causing serious accidental injuries to its passengers
including Kiran Dang, Kishore Kumar Dang. Sh. Kishore Kumar
Dang later died during treatment on 25.06.2018. FIR was
registered at PS Bhadrabad, Haridwar on 21.07.2018,
Investigation was undertaken. Mechanical Inspection of the
offending vehicle was got done. Driver of the offending vehicle
was charge sheeted for causing death and injuring public persons
on a public way.
2(b). It is stated that injured was a housewife at the time of
accident, however, she is unable to discharge her household
duties effectively post accident due to the injuries sustained in the
accident. A compensation amount of Rs. 20 lakhs has been
sought.
3.Proceedings:
3(a) All the respondents appeared in response to notice of claim
petition and filed their replies respectively.
4. Reply:
4(a). In WS filed on behalf of R-1, it is submitted that R-1 has
falsely been implicated in this matter and that he had a valid DL
at the time of accident. The averments of the petitions were
broadly denied.
4(b) In WS on behalf of R-2, it is stated that there is no
evidence to show that petitioners were travelling in the offending
vehicle.
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 3 of 24
4(c). In WS filed on behalf of Insurance Company, it is stated
that the offending vehicle was being run without permit and
fitness. Further, driver was not holding proper Driving License. It
is averred there was willful intentional breach of terms and
condition of policy by insured and therefore, insurance company
denied its liability to indemnify the insured to pay compensation
to the victims.
5. Issues:
5(a) From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 16.07.2019:
1) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 10.06.2018 due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 16DT
1656 driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured
with R-3 ? OPP.
2) Whether the claimants are entitled to any
compensation, if so, to what extent and from
whom ? OPP.
3) Relief.
6. Evidence:
6(a) Matter was then listed for evidence. Injured Kiran Dang
stepped in the witness box as PW1 and tendered her evidentiary
affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. She relied upon following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/1 (colly) – Photocopy of Aadhar Card and PAN
Card
(ii) Ex.PW1/2 – Original Medical treatment record
(iii) Ex.PW1/3 – Copy of criminal case record.
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for insurance
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 4 of 24
company and well as counsel for R-1.
6(b) Petitioner Evidence was closed vide order dated
18.10.2023. Matter was then listed for Respondent Evidence.
6(c) R3W1 Sh. Nishant, official of Insurance Company
tendered his Evidentiary Affidavit as Ex.R3W1/A. He relied
upon Insurance Policy as Ex.R3W1/1, copy of Notice u/O 12
Rule 8 CPC as Ex.R3W1/2 and Postal Receipt as Ex.R3W1/3
(colly). He was cross examined by counsel for claimant.
6(d) Respondent Evidence was closed vide order dated
02.03.2024. Matter was then listed for final arguments.
7. Final Arguments:
7(a) Final arguments were advanced by counsel for claimant as
well as counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company.
7(b) Counsel for claimant argued that accident happened solely
on account of the reckless on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. He has further deposed that there is no dispute
about the involvement or identification of the offending vehicle
and the driver thereof. He further submitted that injured is unable
to discharge her duties towards household effectively.
7(c) Counsel for Insurance Company has fairly conceded that
offending vehicle has valid insurance policy as on the date of
accident. He has contended that the vehicle was being run
without permit which constitutes willful breach of terms and
conditions of insurance policy. He also pointed out that notice
u/O XII Rule 8 CPC was served upon the owner but was not
answered. He also stated that necessary evidence in that respect
has already been led.
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 5 of 24
8. Discussion:
ISSUE NO.1
1) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 10.06.2018 due to rash
and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP 16DT
1656 driven by R-1, owned by R-2 and insured
with R-3 ? OPP.
8(a). PW-1 Kiran Dang deposed that she along with her family
members including her husband had boarded the offending
vehicle as paid passengers for commuting to Haridwar/ Rishikesh
on 09.06.2018 at about 11.30 AM. She further deposed that on
10.06.2018 at about 04.00 AM, near Kaur College, the driver
attempted to overtake another vehicle in high speed from wrong
side due to which it lost its balance and went off the road and
turned turtle in a ditch causing accidental injuries to the
occupants of the offending vehicle. She deposed that her husband
died due to fatal injuries whereas she and her relative Madhu
Bangia received grievous injuries. She was put to detailed cross
examination by counsel for insurance company as well as by
counsel for R-1. With respect to necessary details about the
accident, she clarified that 16 family members travelling in the
said Tata Travellor and and as such there was no stranger other
than her family member as passengers. She clarified that
Haridwar was half away from the spot of accident. She also
pointed that there was a divider on the Delhi – Haridwar Road
but there was no railing besides the road while their vehicle was
being plied on the left side of the road when the accident
occurred and the driver tried to overtake another vehicle from the
left side resulting in the accident. She also stated that the driver
did not suffer any injuries rather jumped and fled away from the
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 6 of 24
spot of accident while there was no helper or conductor in the
said vehicle. She declined the suggestion that the accident
occurred on account of mechanical fault of the said vehicle. She
also clarified that she as well as her husband had cautioned the
driver to drive safely. She declined the suggestion that driver
took all necessary precaution and was driving safely and was not
responsible for the accident. She also pointed that she got the FIR
registered after about a month of accident as she had suffered
serious injuries also as she lost her husband in the ill fated
accident.
8(b) It is noted that Smt. Madhu Bangia was also examined as
one of the injured in connected matter wherein she deposed on
the same as the deposition of PW-1 Kiran Dang. She also
admitted that the offending vehicle got disbalanced and turned
turtle resulting in the road accident. She also denied that the
accident happened on account of mechanical fault of the vehicle
and asserted that vehicle was being plied in high speed.
8(c) Delay in registration of FIR has been duly explained by the
witnesses. There seems to be no dispute in identification of the
vehicle as there was no other vehicle involved. Similarly, identity
of driver of the offending vehicle is evident. Counsel for the
respondents have not been able to elicit any contradiction in the
testimony of the injured persons/ eye witnesses who have
detailed the circumstances causing the accident. The testimony of
eye witnesses looks natural and convincing. There is no reason to
doubt the credibility of the deposition or veracity of the
witnesses.
8(d) R-1 has been charge sheeted for causing death to victim
due to speedy and rash driving of the offending vehicle. R-1,
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 7 of 24
being the driver was the best person to divulge crucial details
leading to the accident, however, he has chosen not to testify
about the contextual circumstances of the accident. R-3/
Insurance Company could also have called upon R-1 as driver of
the offending vehicle to testify about the facts and circumstances
of the accident, however, same was not resorted to. It is settled
that filing of charge sheet itself is a significant step towards the
inference of negligence on the part of driver of the offending
vehicle. (Support drawn from the Judgment in the case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287
Delhi as referred and relied by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in case of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr SLP (C)
No. 10351/2019). It is also settled that adverse inference can be
drawn against the driver of the offending vehicle in case he does
not appear as a witness to depose and clarify about his stance in
respect of the accident. (support drawn from the judgment in the
case of Cholamandlam insurance company Ltd. Vs. Kamlesh
2009 (3) AD Delhi 310.)
8(e) It is a well-established legal principle that negligence in
motor accident cases should be determined based on the
preponderance of probabilities, not on proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The facts and circumstances must be considered in a broad
and practical manner. It is also settled that proceedings under the
Motor Vehicles Act are different from regular civil suits and are
not strictly governed by the technical rules of the Indian
Evidence Act. (as observed by Their Lordships of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC
530 further referred and relied by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 8 of 24
India in recent pronouncement in the case of Mathew Alexander
vs Mohammed Shafi SLP (Crl) No.8211 of 2022).
8(f). The entirety of the evidence discussed points to the
inescapable conclusion that the accident resulted from the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In
light of the aforementioned findings, Issue No. 1 is hereby
decided in favor of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2
Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, if
so, to what extent and from whom?OPP
9. Sec. 168 MV Act enjoins the Claim Tribunals to hold an
enquiry into the claim to make an effort determining the amount
of compensation which appears to it to be just and reasonable.
Same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“(1) Award of the Claims Tribunal.–On receipt of an
application for compensation made under section 166, the
Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to
the insurer and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an
opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as
the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions
of section 162 may make an award determining the amount of
compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the
person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in
making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount
which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the
vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the
case may be: Provided that where such application makes a
claim for compensation under section 140 in respect of the death
or permanent disablement of any person, such claim and any
other claim (whether made in such application or otherwise) for
compensation in respect of such death or permanent disablement
shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
X.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall arrange to deliver copies of the
award to the parties concerned expeditiously and in any case
within a period of fifteen days from the date of the award.
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 9 of 24
(3) When an award is made under this section, the person who is
required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall, within
thirty days of the date of announcing the award by the ClaimsTribunal, deposit the entire amount awarded in such manner as
the Claims Tribunal may direct.”
10. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
essentially a very difficult task and can never be an exact science.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible, more so in claims of
injury and disability. (As observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager United
India Insurance Company Ltd, SLP (Civil) No. 19277 of 2019)
11. The basic principle in assessing motor vehicle
compensation claims, is to place the victim in as near a position
as she or he was in before the accident, with other compensatory
directions for loss of amenities and other payments. These
general principles have been stated and reiterated in several
decisions. [Support drawn from Govind Yadav v. New India
Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.]
12. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and
Another, (2003) 7 SCC 197, needs mention here (para 15):
Statutory provisions clearly indicate that the compensation must
be “just” and it cannot be a bonanza; not a source of profit but
the same should not be a pittance. The courts and tribunals have
a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of
compensation, which should be just. What would be “just”
compensation is a vexed question. There can be no golden rule
applicable to all cases for measuring the value of human life or a
limb. Measure of damages cannot be arrived at by precise
mathematical calculations. It would depend upon the particular
facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or specialMACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 10 of 24
features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing
compensation has to be considered in the background of “just”
compensation which is the pivotal consideration. Though by use
of the expression “which appears to it to be just”, a wide
discretion is vested in the Tribunal, the determination has to be
rational, to be done by a judicious approach and not the outcome
of whims, wild guesses and arbitrariness.. …”
13. Delineating the damages as pecuniary and non pecuniary,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of R. D. Hattangadi Vs.
Pest Control (India) Pvt Ltd, 1995 AIR 755, made following
observations:
“9….while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a
victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and special damages.
Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually
incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of
money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In
order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may
include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial;
(iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and
physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to
be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on
account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or
sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on
account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned
is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort,
disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life.” Further,
Insurance Company in its RE, examined its Legal Manager Sh
Sayok Bandyopadhyay as R2W1. Such witness R2W1 tendered
his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A and
relied upon various documents including DAR, copy of
Insurance Policy, Verification Report dated 20.03.2020 issued by
Reliance Gen. Ins. Co and copy of complaint dated 06.01.2021
given to DCP, Sarita Vihar. He was then cross examined by LAC
for R1.
14. Certain principles for delineating just compensation were
enumerated in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr.,
(2011) 1 SCC 343, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 11 of 24
Following observations are relevant in the context:
“40.General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”, for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means
that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and
adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the
loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do
so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or the
Tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and
exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though
some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its
consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which
he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to
enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to
earn or could have earned. [See C.K. Subramania Iyer v. T.
Kunhikuttan Nair [(1969) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 1970 SC 376] , R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 551 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 250] and Baker v. Willoughby [1970 AC 467 :
(1970) 2 WLR 50 : (1969) 3 All ER 1528 (HL)] .]
6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury
cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would
have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of
the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded
only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of
injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating
the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted
under any of the heads (ii)(b),
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 12 of 24
(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.
7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and under Item
(ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of
actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under
the head of future medical expenses–Item (iii)–depends upon
specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and
cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages–Items (iv), (v)
and (vi)–involves determination of lump sum amounts with
reference to circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect
thereof on the future life of the claimant.”
15. The abovesaid principles have been placed reliance upon
in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The Divisional
Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., arising out of
SLP (Civil) no. 19277 of 2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India as decided on 16.11.2022.
16. It is settled proposition of law as held in catena of
judgments that “just compensation” should include all elements
that would go to place the victim in as near a position as she or
he was in, before the occurrence of the accident. Whilst no
amount of money or other material compensation can erase the
trauma, pain and suffering that a victim undergoes after a serious
accident, (or replace the loss of a loved one), monetary
compensation is the manner known to law, whereby society
assures some measure of restitution to those who survive, and the
victims who have to face their lives.
17. Loss of Earning
17(a) To determine compensation, it is imperative to ascertain
the income of the deceased. Injured was stated to be housewife at
the time of accident. As per Aadhar Card, she was resident of
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 13 of 24
Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.
17(b) At this stage, it is relevant to note that in New India
Assurance Vs. Khayali Ram decided on 24.01.2017 in MACA
No.251/14, Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that services of a
housewife are equivalent to the services rendered by a skilled
workman.
17(c) As per the settled proposition of law, counting the
invaluable contribution of the lady of the house, towards the
entire family in terms of the selfless services rendered by her to
keep things together and also taking into account the unorginised
labour that she indulged in to support her family, she is taken to
be a skilled person on the date of accident, working in the NCT
of Delhi and therefore, her monthly income is ascertained to be
Rs. 16,858/-.
17(d) Any MLC of injured has not been filed on record. Nature
of injury has been mentioned as left clavicle fracture. Any other
serious complication or history has not been found from the
treatment documents presented on record. Discharge Summary
Ex.PW1/2 (colly) shows that injured remained hospitalized for
one day. Another OPD prescription dated 17.07.2018 for follow
up treatment has been filed on record. The fracture in clavicle
region might have caused restricted movement making everyday
tasks like lifting, dressing, and household work difficult. Without
sufficient rest, complications like improper healing, stiffness, or
muscle weakness could develop, leading to long-term issues. The
testimony of PW-1, stating that she hired a housemaid for four
months, reflects her inability to manage daily activities, further
supporting the need for extended rest to ensure complete and
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 14 of 24
proper healing. It is thus held that injured was not in a position to
do household work for about 3 months.
18. Having regard to the law as also discussed above regarding
compensation, in the present case award amount is calculated as
under:
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : – Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment : Claimant Rs. 5,000/-
has asserted that she has spent
Rs.50,000/- over her treatment, however,
medical bills could not be preserved. In
absence of any medical bills only Sundry
/ miscellaneous expenses of Rs.5,000/-
awarded to injured considering nature of
injuries.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance : PW1 Rs. 10,000/-
deposed in her evidentiary affidavit that
she has spent Rs. 700/- per trip to
hospital for 10 times and Rs.7,000/- per
month for three month post accident.
However, any bill with regard to
conveyance has not been filed on record.
Considering the nature of injuries,
Compensation towards conveyance is
granted by guess work.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet : Injured Rs.10,000/-
has deposed that she spent Rs. 100/- per
day for about 4 months on her special
diet, however, any bill/ proof with regard
to such expense is not there on record.
Considering the nature of injuries,
compensation can be awarded for special
diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing / attendant : PW-1 Rs.20,000/-
also deposed in her affidavit that she has
engaged a maid to do household works
for four months at a salary of Rs.
10,000/- per month. However, any
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 15 of 24
document has not been filed on record.
It is settled that the injured is entitled to
attendant charges even if services were
rendered by family members.
(v) Loss of income : Rs. 16,858/- x 3 Rs.50,574/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of mental and physical Rs.50,000/-
shock as well as pain suffering : Nature
of injuries are mentioned in Discharge
Summary Ex.PW1/2 (colly) are fracture
in left clavicle. The injured must have
endured significant physical pain and
discomfort, as such injuries are typically
associated with severe pain, restricted
mobility, and challenges in performing
daily tasks. Additionally, the inability to
carry out routine household work and
reliance on others for support likely
caused mental distress and a sense of
helplessness. The prolonged recovery
period, combined with the limitations
imposed by the injury, would have
further contributed to emotional
suffering, making the overall experience
physically and mentally taxing for the
injured.
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs.10,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 1,55,574/- 19. Interest:
19(a). It is settled that any fixed rate of interest cannot be
prescribed for all cases at all times and would largely depend
upon the prevailing rate of interest as per the applicable
guidelines. As such, interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum is
deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case. (Reliance
placed upon National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Yad Ram
MAC APP 526/2018 also referred and relied in case of The
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 16 of 24
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. MAC
APP 70/2024 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court).
20. Liability:-
20(a) Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company has asserted that the
offending vehicle was plied without a valid permit. As such other
defences like infractions in the authorisation of the Driving
License and Fitness Certificate were also contended in the
Written Statement. However, in evidentiary affidavit, Insurance
Company has restricted the defence to no permit as on the date of
accident.
20(b) It is contended that the insured violated the terms and
conditions of the insurance company, thereby absolving R-3 of
any liability to indemnify the insured in this case. The Insurance
Company presented Sh. Nishant, official of Insurance Company
who provided the records pertaining to the offending vehicle i.e.
Insurance Policy (Ex.R3W1/1) as well as notice under Order 12
Rule 8 CPC and Postal Receipt as Ex.R3W1/2 & Ex.R3W1/3
respectively. He deposed that despite service of notice,
Respondent Owner did not produce his permit. There is no
evidence on record that the owner ever replied to the notice under
Order XII Rule 8 CPC and produced permit or authorisation
receipt factually covering the date of accident.
20(c) The vehicle particulars filed by petitioners as part of claim
petition, which is also not disputed, mentions that the permit in
question is an ‘All India Permit’ issued from RTO Office
Ghaziabad with a validity from 09.10.2015 to 08.10.2020,
however any specific region has not been mentioned for whichMACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 17 of 24
permit authorisation has been used. It is evident that accident
occurred in the jurisdiction of Bhadrabad, Haridwar. It is also
settled that any permit issued by RTA shall be valid only for
plying in state/ region unless specifically authorised for
contiguous / other States. Section 88 of MV Act is reproduced
hereunder:
“88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which
granted. – (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit
granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region
shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been
countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other
region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid
in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport
Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport
Authority concerned:
20(d) It is not in dispute that offending vehicle was holding All
India National Permit as on the date of accident. Explanation
appended to Section 88 (12) MV Act defines National Permit
which reads as under:
“national permit means a permit granted by the appropriate
authority to goods carriages to operate throughout the territory
of India or in such contiguous States not being less than four in
number, including the State in which the permit is issued as may
be specified in such permit in accordance with the choice
indicated in the application.”
20(e) Section 88 (12) MV Act authorises issuance of National
Permit to cover all India mobility of Transport Vehicle which
reads as under:
“12. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but,
subject to the rules that may be made by the Central
Government under sub-section (14), the appropriate authority
may, for the purpose of encouraging long distance inter-State
road transport, grant in a State, national permits in respect of
goods carriages and the provisions of sections 69, 77, 79, 80, 81,MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 18 of 24
82, 83, 84, 85, 86, [clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 87
and section 89] shall, as far as may be, apply to or in relation to
the grant of national permits.”
20(f). Section 81 MV Act lays down the law in respect of
renewal of permit. It would be relevant at this stage to refer Sec.
81 MV Act for further discussion:
“(1)………
(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made not less
than fifteen days before the date of its expiry.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the
Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as
the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of
a permit after the last date specified in that sub-section if it is
satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient
cause from making an application within the time specified.
(4)…………..
(5) Where a permit has been renewed under this section after the
expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from
the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a
temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of section
87, and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid
in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded.”
20(g) In case at hand, permit itself was valid for mobility across
Indian Territory. However, the details of permit do not reflect
whether applicable authorisation fee was paid by owner of the
vehicle for validly plying in the State of Uttrakhand.
20(h) It is settled that authorisation validity is pivotal in permit
verification so as to ply the vehicle outside state. Certain
observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Mohd.
Manzoor & Anr. Vs. Khuyabuda Khatun & Ors. MAC App
401/2016 as relevant to the context are reproduced as under:
4. A division bench of Kerala High Court had the occasion to go
into similar issues in a judgment reported as MC Sunil Vs.
Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad and Ors., AIR 2005 Kerala
221. Since the view taken in the said judgment commends itself
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 19 of 24
being followed in view of the relevant provisions of law, the
relevant observations appearing therein need to be referred to.
5. Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines “national
permit” by clause (c) of the explanation appended thereto to
mean “a permit granted by the appropriate authority to goods
carriages to operate throughout the territory of India or in such
contiguous States, not being less than four in number including
the State in which the permit is issued as may be specified in
such permit in accordance with the choice indicated in the
application”. Mere taking of a national permit from the State
Transport Authority is not sufficient to allow a vehicle to be
plied outside the State. For such purposes i.e. plying the vehicle
outside the State where it is registered, there is a need
for “authorization”. Such authorization is issued by the State
Transport Authority upon payment of “authorization fee”, an
expression which is defined by clause (b) in the explanation
appended to Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act so as to mean
“the annual fee not exceeding one thousand rupees, which may
be charged by the appropriate authority of a State to enable a
motor vehicle, covered by the permit referred to in sub-sections
(9) and (12) to be used in other State subject to the payment of
taxes or fees, if any, levied by the States concerned”.
20(i) The term ‘authorisation fee’ has been defined in
Explanation to Section 88 MV Act which reads as under:
“88(b) authorisation fee means the annual fee, not exceeding one
thousand rupees, which may be charged by the appropriate
authority of a State to enable a motor vehicle, covered by the
permit referred to in sub-sections (9) and (12) to be used in other
States subject to the payment of taxes or fees, if any, levied by
the States concerned;
20(j) Rule 87 MV Act lays down the procedure and validity of
authorisation which reads as under:
“87. Form, contents and duration of authorisation.–(1) An
application for the grant of an authorisation for a national permit
shall be made in Form 46 and shall be accompanied by a fee of
Rs. 500 per annum in the form of a bank draft.
(2) Every authorization shall be granted in Form 47 subject to
the payment of the taxes or fees, if any levied by the States
concerned.
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 20 of 24
(2-A) The authority which grants the authorisation shall inform
the State Transport Authorities concerned the registration
number of the motor vehicle, the name and address of the permit
holder and the period for which the said authorisation is valid.
(3) The period of validity of an authorisation shall not exceed
one year at a time.”
20(k) It is evident from the record that the permit of the
offending vehicle was valid on the date of the accident. The
primary issue, however, is whether the vehicle was authorised to
operate within the State of Uttarakhand. Directions were issued
for furnishing details about Permit and Authorisation to relevant
Authority. In pursuant to direction Permit details along with the
Vehicle History Report were submitted, which indicate that the
permit in question was issued under the category of All India
Tourist Permit. The record further reflects that an amount of
Rs.500/- was paid on 25.09.2017 towards the ‘Renewal of Permit
and Authorisation’. Payment / fee of Rs.500/- was also deposited
on 14.10.2016 for the same purpose in the previous year. It can
thus be reasonably inferred that the authorisation under the
permit is renewed annually, and accordingly, the renewal in
September 2017 would be valid up to September 2018. Since the
accident occurred on 10.06.2018, the authorisation was valid at
the relevant time. Authorisation fee paid on 25.09.2017 was
towards authorisation to ply Tourist vehicles across India
including State of Uttrakhand. Therefore, it stands established
that the offending vehicle was operating under a valid permit and
valid authorisation at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the
objection raised by the Insurance Company regarding the absence
of a valid permit or without authorisation on the date of the
accident is found to be without merit and is hereby rejected.
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 21 of 24
20(l). Insurance Company has conceded valid and effective
Insurance Policy on the date of accident. It has already been held
that accident occurred on account of speedy and rash driving of
offending vehicle. It is settled that Insurance Company is
responsible to indemnify owner / insured for vicarious liability
incurred by tort feaser. Therefore, such principal award
amount/compensation will be payable by the insurance company
of offending vehicle with simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the
date of filing of petition till actual realization. (If there is any
order regarding excluding of interest for specific period same be
complied at the time of calculation of award amount).
21. The award amount shall be deposited by the Insurance
Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company is also directed to
furnish the complete case details, including the MACT case
number, CNR number, FIR number, name of Police Station,
name of the deceased/claimant(s), date of accident, and any other
relevant particulars, to the State Bank of India, Saket Court
Branch, New Delhi at the time of getting the amount deposited.
The amount shall be deposited through RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in the
account titled “MACT FUND PARKING”, Account No.
00000042706870765, IFSC Code SBIN0014244, MICR Code
110002342, under intimation to the Nazir of this Tribunal.
22. Release of Award Amount/ Disbursement
(a) Since the amount is not huge, whole compensation amount
along with interest shall be released in her bank account.
23. In terms of the Practice Directions issued by Hon’ble High
Court, vide reference no. 134/Rules/DHC, dated 14.05.2025, the
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 22 of 24
claimant (s) are directed to produce their bank account details
along with either a certificate of the banker giving all details of
the bank account of the person or persons entitled to receive the
compensation including IFS Code, or a copy of cancelled cheque
of the bank account to this Tribunal with seven days of the date
of Award, if not already placed on record. They are also directed
to file their Aadhar Card and PAN Card if not already filed.
24. Directions to the Branch Manager, SBI, Saket Court
Complex
24(a). The Manager, SBI, Saket Court Complex, is further
directed to verify the documents and details submitted by the
claimant pertaining to their bank account, and upon proper
verification, under certification of the Branch Manager (of the
bank whose details have been provided by the claimant for
release of the compensation amount) disburse the amount,
directed to be released to the claimant, directly into the verified
bank account of the claimant under notice to the Tribunal.
25. SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 10.06.2018
2 Name of injured Kiran Dang
3 Age of the injured 44 years
4 Occupation of the Housewife
injured
5 Income of the injured Minimum wages for skilled
MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 23 of 24
person
6 Nature injury Grievous injury
7 Medical treatment taken As per record.
by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any permanent Grievous injury
disability?
26. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be sent to Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld. Concerned
Digitally signed
Criminal Court. by SHELLY
SHELLY ARORA
Date:
Announced in the open court
ARORA 2025.07.28
16:31:46
+0530
on 28.07.2025
Shelly Arora
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket/Delhi
28.07.2025MACT No. 892/18 Kiran Dang Vs. Satvir & Ors. Page No. 24 of 24