Delhi District Court
Rajeev Kumar (I) (Fir 591/2022/Dbg … vs Suhail Qureshi(Go Digit Insu Comp) on 18 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010176642022
MACT No. : 21/2023
FIR No. : 591/2022
PS : DBG Road
u/s : 279/338/IPC
Rajeev Kumar, S/o Sh. Devender Kumar
R/o -26/122, Diddharth Gali No. 10,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Suhail Qureshi, (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o Raees Qureshi
R/o H. No. 828, Gali Chorwali Sheesh Mahal,
Azad Market, Delhi
2. Ms.Rukhsana Begum, (owner of the offending vehicle)
W/o Lt. Mohd. Ahsan
R/o H. No. 699, Sheesh Mahal,
Azad Market, Delhi.
3. Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.(Insurer)
301, 3rd Floor, Chandra Bhavan,
Nehru Place, Delhi-110019,
Policy No. D069336597
Valid From : 05.07.2022 to 04.07.2023 ...Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 05.01.2023
Judgment reserved on : 10.07.2025
Date of Award : 18.07.2025
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:04:06
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 1 of 42
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
23.12.2022 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 17.08.2022 at about 12:25 PM , on
Rani Jhashi Road Filmistan Cinema Road, Delhi. Mr. Rajeev
(hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had suffered grievous injuries
in the said accident which was allegedly caused by vehicle bearing
registration No. DL11M3461(hereinafter referred to as the offending
vehicle) The said vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Sh.
Suhail Qureshi; owned by respondent No.2 Rukhsana Begum and
insured with respondent no.3, Go Diginal General Insurance Company
Ltd. Jhandewalan Karol Bagh, Delhi.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
23.12.2022, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 46A,
the information of present accident was handed over to ASI A.N Prasad,
No.1216/C and he went to the spot i.e. on Rani Jhashi Road Filmistan
Cinema Road, Delhi. After reaching at the spot he found that two scooty
bearing No. DL 11M3461 and DL5SCF7780 were stationed in an
accidental condition and one injured Mr. Suhail was found there. ASI
Laxmi Narayan No. 5082/C was on picket duty at Rani Jhanshi Road.
After leaving ASI on the spot, IO went to the hospital. No eye witness
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:04:21MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 2 of 42
+0530
was found at the spot. Thereafter, IO came to know that one more
person got injured in this accident who had been taken to the Jeevan
Mala hospital by the public . IO had taken injured Suhail also to Jeevan
Mala Hospital for his treatment. IO had collected the MLCs of both the
injured. Doctor had informed IO that injured Rajeev was unconscious
and referred to Higher Center. After investigation IO came to know that
Suhail hit Rajeev from the back side of the scooty. Further, IO
interrogated the Suhail about the accident and he said that he did not
have any DL with them.
3. Thereafter, FIR was registered on the basis of DD Entry and
MLC u/s 279/337 IPC. Thereafter IO had prepared site plan of the spot.
IO had also checked the CCTV footage but there was no CCTV at the
place of accident. Both the accidental scooties were deposited to
Malkhana. Mechanical inspection of both the scooties were got
conducted. Further, Notice was served to the owner of the offending u/s
133 MV Act. Owner of the offending vehicle replied on notice u/s 133
MV Act that at the time of accident the scooty was driven by her
nephew namely Sh. Suhail. IO had recorded the statement of injured
Rajeev. IO had released both the vehicles on superdari. Rajeev went to
PS for getting information of his case where Suhail was also there. At
that time Rajeev identified Sh. Suhail. Suhail had also accepted his fault
and IO arrested him at the PS. Thereafter, Suhail was released on bail.
Further, MLCs of both the injured were deposited to the hospital for
final opinion. MLC No.146/22 of injured Rajeev was opined by the
doctors as “Grievous” and IO changed the sections from 337 IPC to 338
IPC. RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date: 2025.07.19
17:04:29 +0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 3 of 42
4. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for the
offences u/s 279/338 IPC & 3/181 MV Act was filed against the driver
of the offending vehicle, Mr. Suhail before the concerned Ld. JMFC and
the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
5. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
17.10.2023. No written statement was filed by respondent nos.1 & 2.
Respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not appear before this Tribunal and were,
thus, proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 11.03.2024.
ISSUES
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
11.03.2024, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an
accident that took place on 17.08.2022 at about 12.25 P.M. at Rani
Jhansi Road, Filmistan Cinema, Delhi involving vehicle i.e. scooty
bearing registration No. DL11 M 361 driven rashly and negligently by
respondent no. 1 Suhail Qureshi? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
7. The petitioner/injured examined PW-1 /Sh. Devender
Kumar, who is his father. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit
which is Ex.PW-1/A and the same bears his signatures at points-A & Β. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:04:39MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 4 of 42
+0530
He relied upon the following documents:
1. Medical Treatment record of the petitioner which is Ex.PW-1/1(Colly.
45 sheets).
2. Medical Bills which are Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly. 64 pages).
3. Copy of Educational certificate of the petitioner which is Ex.PW-1/3
(Colly. 2 sheets).
4. Copy of DL of the petitioner which has been mentioned as Ex.
PW-1/4 in his affidavit stands de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-
‘A’.
5. Copy of Pan Card of the petitioner which is Ex. PW-1/5 (OSR).
6. Copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner which is Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR).
7. Copy of his Aadhar Card which is Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR).
8. Attested copy of DAR which is Ex. PW-1/8 (Colly.).
9. Copy of Income Tax records with computation of the petitioner which
is Ex. PW-1/9 (Colly. 12 sheets).
8. Thereafter, PW/2 Mr. Gaurav Malhotra, Junior Medical
Record Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New
Delhi-110060. He was the summoned witness. He has been authorised
to depose before this Hon’ble Tribunal by Mr. A. Masih, Medical Record
Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on the back side of summoned
received at the hospital. Photocopy of the same is Ex. PW-2/1 (OSR).
He has brought the summoned record i.e. Medical Treatment record and
Medical bills of the patient Mr. Rajeev Kumar available with the
hospital. He has verified the original medical treatment record and
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:04:45
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 5 of 42
medical bills already exhibited on behalf of the patient with the xerox
record brought by him and the same has been found true and correct. He
further state that as per hospital record, the patient was admitted in
casualty, his MLC was prepared and investigation tests were conducted.
He also states that as per record, the payment of the bill of Rs. 17,160/-
was made by the patient himself.
9. Further, PW-3: Mr. Jatin Kumar Sulani, Medical Record
Technician, Max Super Speciality Hospital, Patparganj, Delhi. He was
the summoned witness. He has been authorised to depose before this
Hon’ble Tribunal vide authority letter which is Mark- ‘A’. He has
brought the summoned record i.c. Medical Treatment record and
Medical bills of the patient Mr. Rajeev Kumar available with the Max
Hospital. Mr. Rajeev Kumar was admitted in their hospital twice. He
stated that the injured was admitted in the hospital for the first time on
17.08.2022 till 05.09.2022. The final bill was for Rs. 11,16,887/-out of
which, Rs. 7,03,545/- was paid by the mediclaim company i.e. HDFC
Ergo General Insurance Company and remaining payment of Rs.
3,61,316/- was made on behalf of the patient himself. Attested copies of
Medical Treatment Record and medical bills for the above said period
are Ex. PW-3/1 (Colly. 415 pages) (OSR).
10. He further stated that then, the petitioner was admitted in
their hospital for the second time from 28.07.2023 to 30.07.2023. The
final bill was for Rs.51,136/- out of which, Rs. 40,614/- was paid by the
mediclaim company i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company and
remaining payment of Rs. 8,457/- was made on behalf of the patient Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:04:50
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 6 of 42
himself. Attested copies of Medical Treatment Record and medical bills
for the above said period are Ex. PW-3/2 (Colly. 35 pages) (OSR).
11. Thereafter, PW-4: Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, Tax Assistant
from Income Tax Department, Ministry of Finance, Ward No. 58(7),
Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. He was the summoned witness.
He has been authorised by Income Tax Officer Mr. Kapil Deo to depose
before this Hon’ble Tribunal vide authority letter dated 21.03.2025
which is Ex.PW-4/A. He has brought the summoned record i.e. attested
copies of the ITRs for the assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-
23 with respect to assessee Mr. Rajeev Kumar i.e. injured in the present
case. The same are Ex. PW-4/B (Colly. 19 pages).
12. Further, the petitioner examined PW-5 IO HC Surender, No.
361-W, P.S. Kirti Nagar, Delhi. On 17.08.2022, he was on emergency
duty at P.S. DBG Road. On that day, he had received the DD No. 46A
regarding the accident in question. He alongwith ASI Achitanand went
to the spot of the accident where he found two vehicles i.e. one scooty
(Suzuki Access) bearing registration no. DL-11M-3461 and the other
scooty (Honda Activa) bearing registration no. DL-5SCF-7780 in
accidental condition. The driver of the offending vehicle was also
present there who had also received injuries. The injured Rajeev Kumar
had already been taken to Jeewanmala Hospital by some public person.
He immediately rushed to Jeewanmala Hospital along with the
injured/driver of the offending vehicle namely Suhail Qureshi and got
him admitted in the said hospital vide MLC No. 147/22 he found the
injured Rajeev Kumar in the said hospital under treatment vide MLC Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:04:55
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 7 of 42
No. 146/22 wherein the doctor had mentioned “RTA Not fit for
statement”. Injured Rajeev was unconscious and therefore, he was
referred to higher centre. He made enquiry from Suhail, driver of the
offending vehicle who stated that he was not having any driving license.
On the basis of the spot of accident and the MLC of the injured, offence
under section 279/337 of IPC and Section 3/181 of M.V. Act was found
to have been committed and accordingly, FIR was registered.
13. He further stated that during the course of investigation, he
prepared the site plan, seized both the above mentioned accidental
vehicles and got the mechanical inspection of the same conducted. He
recorded the statement of injured Rajeev. Thereafter, he arrested the
driver of the offending vehicle on 27.10.2022 and since the offence was
bailable, he was released on police bail. There was a police picket at
about 100-150 mtrs. away from the spot of accident where ASI Laxmi
Narain was on duty. He disclosed manner of the accident to him. Both
the vehicle were released on superdari. The accident in question had
occurred due to sole negligence of the driver Suhail Qureshi as he had
hit the injured from back side. After completion of investigation, he had
filed the chargesheet under Section 279/338 IPC and Section 3/181 M.V.
Act before the Ld. JMFC against respondent no.1 and DAR before this
Tribunal. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 24.03.2025.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
14. The respondent no.3 examined R3W-1:Mr. Abhishek Singh
Deval, Manager (Legal), Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. IFCI
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:01
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 8 of 42
Tower, B-Block , 5th Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi. He tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. R3W-1/A. He relied upon the
following documents:
1) His authority letter which is Ex. R3W-1/1.
2) Copy of insurance Policy which is Ex. R3W-1/2 (colly).
Thereafter, RE was closed vide order dated 29.04.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
15. The Petitioner has filed his duly filled Form XIV and
financial statement of the father of the injured was recorded as it was
stated that due to the accident petitioner has suffered neurological
disability and memory loss. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the
petitioner as well as respondent no.3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
16. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel
for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. My findings on the various
issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
1. Whether the petitioner/injured suffered grievous injuries in an
accident that took place on 17.08.2022 at about 12.25 P.M. at
Rani Jhansi Road, Filmistan Cinema, Delhi involving vehicle i.e.
scooty bearing registration No. DL11 M 361 driven rashly and
negligently by respondent no. 1 Suhail Qureshi? OPP.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:06
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 9 of 42
17. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 17.08.2022, when the injured was going
on his scooty, he was hit from behind by the offending vehicle driven by
the respondent no. 1. It is submitted that the offending vehicle was
driven by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner due to
which the accident occurred and the petitioner suffered injuries. To
prove this fact, the petitioner was not produced in the witness box as it is
stated that he was not in such a condition to depose. It was stated that he
is suffering from neurological disability and has lost his memory. In his
place, his father was produced in the witness box as PW-1. However, he
admitted in his cross examination that he was not the eye witness to the
said accident.
18. However, to prove the accident, the petitioner also
summoned the IO of the present case PW-5/HC Surender. He reiterated
the version as mentioned in the DAR in his examination in chief.
Further, he stated that when he reached at the spot he found the
petitioner’s scooty and the offending vehicle in an accidental condition,
which were seized at the spot by him. He further deposed that on
investigation he found that the injured i.e. the petitioner and the
respondent no. 1 were both taken to the hospital. Further, he also stated
that when the petitioner was examined, he was declared not fit for
statement.
19. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has argued that the
accident could not be proved on record as the petitioner did not enter the
witness box. Further, it is submitted that as per the disability certificate,
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:05:11
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 10 of 42
the petitioner has not suffered any neurological disability. He has
suffered psychiatrist disability to the extent of 40% and 24 % temporary
orthopedic disability. Hence, it is submitted that it is not the case that the
petitioner is unable to give deposition.
20. Admittedly, as per the disability certificate, the neurological
disability is zero. However, it is a matter of record that the patient
injured has suffered 40 % disability due to head injury and that the same
has resulted in cognitive decline. Cognitive ability refers to the mental
processes such as thinking, learning, reasoning and problem solving. It
encompasses a wide range of skills including attention, memory,
language and executive functions. Executive functions may include
higher level cognitive skills like planning, decision making and
cognitive flexibility. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances, it
is highly probable that the petitioner is not in such a condition to depose
as a witness.
21. Further, as mentioned above, the factum of the accident is
proved by the IO. The petitioner’s scooty and the offending vehicle were
found by him at the spot in an accidental condition. Furthermore, the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending
vehicle have been proceeded against ex-parte and they did not bother to
join the present proceedings. No cross examination was done by the
respondent nos. 1 and 2 qua the fact that the accident was not caused by
the rashness and negligence of the respondent no.1. Even otherwise, the
petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the accident and
admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no. 1 and hence, Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:16 +0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 11 of 42
it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will implicate
respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending vehicle.
22. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the
principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the
“accident speaks for itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR
and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on
the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident
which the respondents have failed to discharge. No evidence was led by
the respondents no. 1 & 2 to discharge this onus. Hence, an adverse
inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of
Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL.
52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP.
428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi &
Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM
APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
23. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that in the
proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be established on
the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the strict rules of
evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt as required
in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present cases is much Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:22 +0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 12 of 42
lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530 , it has
been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a
holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
24. Further, it is also pertinent to note that the respondents no. 1
& 2 were chargesheeted by the IO under Section 279/338 IPC. In
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 and United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 (2) TAC 846 (Del)
decided by the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it
was held as under :-
“……where the claimants filed either the certified copies
of the criminal record or the criminal record showing
the completion of investigation by police or issuance of
charge sheet under Section 279/304A IPC or the
certified copy of FIR or the recovery of the mechanical
inspection report of the offending vehicle, then these
documents are sufficient proof to reach to a conclusion
that the driver was negligent particularly when there is
no defence available from the side of driver.”
25. Reliance is also being placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in case Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meera
Devi, 2021 LawSuit (Del) wherein it was held that ” ……in view of Delhi
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Rules, 2008, contents of DAR has to be
presumed to be correct and read in evidence without formal proof of the
same unless proof to the contrary was produced.”
26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.07.19
17:05:28 +0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 13 of 42
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the
claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on
the touchstone of preponderance of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the
judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-
sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards
his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and
rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the
same may be of no effect on the assessment of the
liability required in respect of motor accident cases by
the Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B.
Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our
opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on
the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly,
even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no
avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the
pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in
particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the
factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the
offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest
error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is
an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly
wrong.”
27. It has not been disputed that respondent No.1 has been
charge-sheeted in the aforesaid FIR for offences punishable under
Section 279/338 IPC for rash and negligent driving of the offending
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:33 +0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 14 of 42
vehicle. In view of the same, considering the facts and circumstances,
the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the documents filed
thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was caused due to the rash
and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1. From the DAR, it also
stands established that respondent no. 2, Smt. Rukhsana Begum was the
registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is also an admitted position
that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.3, The Go
Digit General Insurance Company vide Policy No. D069336597 valid
w.e.f. 05.07.2022 to 04.07.2023. The factum of the said insurance is also
admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance company.
Contributory negligence:
28. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that
in the present matter, the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence
as he was driving the vehicle without helmet. It is submitted that in case
the petitioner was wearing the helmet, then the nature of his injuries
may not have been so grave as at present. Hence, it is stated that
petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence and the compensation
amount has to be reduced.
29. Perusal of the record shows that as mentioned above, the
petitioner was not produced in the witness box. His father appeared in
the witness box as PW-1 who admitted in his cross examination that he
was not an eye witness to the said accident. No other eye witness of the
accident was examined. However, it is the matter of record that during
the course of investigation the helmet was not seized by the IO. Further, Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:39MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 15 of 42
+0530
perusal of the medical record of the petitioner shows that he has suffered
major injuries in his head. It is also alleged that due to the same he has
suffered cognitive disability to the tune of 40 %. In Ram Niwas Meena
& Anr vs Neeraj Kumar Mishra MAC.APP. 577/2017 decided on 5
September, 2017, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed:
“7. It, however, must be noted in this very context that the
entire record of investigation does not indicate, not even
remotely, presence of any helmet either of the rider Ranjeet
Mishra or of the pillion rider Naresh Kumar Mishra having
been found either at the scene or on their person. No injury
on account of impact of helmets on their respective heads if
worn at the relevant point of time has been noticed either in
the MLC or by the autopsy doctor. In these circumstances,
mere word of PW-1 that both the riders were sporting helmets
cannot be accepted. A finding must be returned that both were
riding on the motorcycle without taking the precaution of
wearing helmets.
8. In above facts and circumstances, while the finding of the
tribunal holding the bus driver responsible for the collision
cannot be questioned, it must be concluded that both the
riders of the motorcycle had also contributed to the cause for
the serious injuries suffered by each of them in that they did
not take precaution of wearing the helmets on their respective
heads. The element of contributory negligence, in the facts
and circumstances, is assessed to the extent of twenty five per
cent (25%). Deduction to that extent from the compensation
awarded by the tribunal will have to be made. Ordered
accordingly.
9. Thus, both appeals are partly allowed. The compensation
determined by the tribunal in the two cases shall be paid after
deducting twenty five per cent (25%) on account of
contributory negligence.”
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:05:52
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 16 of 42
30. Similarly, from the present record it seems that the injured
was riding on his scooty without helmet. Hence, it is held that the
petitioner was also negligent while riding his scooty. His contributory
negligence is ascertained at 25%.
The injury:
31. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. It is the matter
of record that due to the accident, the petitioner Rajiv Kumar suffered
injuries. To prove the same, PW-1 has relied upon the medical record of
the petitioner which are Ex. PW-1/1 (colly) and Ex. PW-1/2 (colly).
Further, the petitioner also summoned the concerned official from Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital. PW-2/ Mr. Gaurav Malhotra appeared as a witness
and he also produced on record the medical documents/bills of the
petitioner on record which are Ex. PW-2/1. Further, on an application
made on behalf of the petitioner, vide order dt. 07.05.2024, directions
were given to the Medical Superintendent GP Pant Hospital to examine
the patient for ascertaining the disability. In this regard, a disability
certificate was filed in the court dt. 27.12.2024 vide which, it can be
seen that the petitioner has suffered total disability to the tune of 53 %.
Further, it is opined that he has suffered 40% disability due to post head
injury cognitive decline and that the affected part of the body was brain.
It was observed that the disability was non progressive but not likely to
improve and was permanent in future. Further it was opined that the
injured had also suffered 24% disability in his both lower limbs which
was to be reassessed after one year. Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:55 +0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 17 of 42
32. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered grievous injury.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner/injured is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.
33. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to
compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (`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 tribunal shall
have to assess the damages objectively and Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:05:59
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 18 of 42
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. Subramonia Iyer
vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R.
D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. –
1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby –
1970 AC 467).
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)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and
trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage). Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:06:03
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 19 of 42
(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).
34. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that he suffered grievous injury due to the
accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
35. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- towards medical
expenses. The petitioner has relied upon bills Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/2
for the same. Further, the petitioner examined PW/2 Mr. Gaurav
Malhotra, Junior Medical Record Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, who
brough the Medical Treatment record and Medical bills of the patient
Mr. Rajeev Kumar available with the hospital. He stated that as per
record, the payment of the bill of Rs. 17,160/- was made by the patient
himself.
36. Further, the petitioner examined PW-3: Mr. Jatin Kumar
Sulani, Medical Record Technician, Max Super Speciality Hospital,
Patparganj, Delhi. He brought the summoned record i.c. Medical
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:06:08
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 20 of 42
Treatment record and Medical bills of the patient Mr. Rajeev Kumar
available with the Max Hospital. He stated that the injured was admitted
in the hospital for the first time on 17.08.2022 till 05.09.2022. The final
bill was for Rs. 11,16,887/-out of which, Rs. 7,03,545/- was paid by the
mediclaim company i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company and
remaining payment of Rs. 3,61,316/- was made on behalf of the patient
himself. Attested copies of Medical Treatment Record and medical bills
for the above said period are Ex. PW-3/1 (Colly. 415 pages) (OSR).
37. He further stated that then, the petitioner was admitted in
their hospital for the second time from 28.07.2023 to 30.07.2023. The
final bill was for Rs.51,136/- out of which, Rs. 40,614/- was paid by the
mediclaim company i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company and
remaining payment of Rs. 8,457/- was made on behalf of the patient
himself. Attested copies of Medical Treatment Record and medical bills
for the above said period are Ex. PW-3/2 (Colly. 35 pages) (OSR).
38. Apart from these bills, the petitioner has filed bills to the
tune of Rs. 5,777/-. Some more bills were filed on behalf of the
petitioner after the conclusion of arguments, which clearly shows that
the petitioner is still under treatment. In view of the same, after
deducting the amount which was paid by the insurance company, the
petitioner is held entitled to Rs. 3,92,710/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income:
39. In this regard, it is submitted that the petitioner was a
businessman running his business under the name and style of Kamlesh
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:06:12MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 21 of 42
+0530
Enterprises and that he was earning a sum of Rs. 70,000/- to Rs.80,000/-
per month. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that due
to the said accident, the petitioner has suffered 53 % disability due to
which he had suffered neurological damage and is unable to work.
Hence, his functional disability may be considered to be 100% as he is
not in a position to work now. It is further stated that he has his parents,
wife and three children to maintain.
40. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 has opposed the same. It
is submitted that as per the disability certificate, the petitioner has not
suffered any neurological disability. He has suffered psychiatrist
disability to the extent of 40 % and 24 % temporary orthopedic
disability. Hence, it is submitted that it is not the case that the petitioner
is unable to work.
41. Record perused. Admittedly, as per the disability certificate,
the neurological disability is zero. However, it is a matter of record that
the patient injured has suffered 40 % disability due to head injury and
that the same has resulted in cognitive decline. Cognitive ability refers
to the mental processes such as thinking, learning, reasoning and
problem solving. It encompasses a wide range of skills including
attention, memory, language and executive functions. Executive
functions may include higher level cognitive skills like planning,
decision making and cognitive flexibility. It has been stated on oath by
the father of the petitioner that the petitioner was doing his own
business. If his skills at planning and decision making are affected, it is
reasonable to expect that he shall not be able to conduct his business in Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:06:20
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 22 of 42
the same manner and vigor as he was able to do earlier. Hence, his
functional disability is assessed at 100 %.
42. To prove his income, the petitioner has relied upon his
income tax returns. The said returns were proved on record by PW-4/Sh.
Dharmesh Kumar Tax Assistant from the Income Tax Department. He
produced the attested copies of the petitioner’s ITRs for the assessment
years 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 which were proved on record as
Ex. PW-4/B colly. Perusal of the last ITR of the petitioner’s shows that
his total income was Rs. 4,88,940/- out of which, he has claimed a sum
of Rs. 1,37,942/- towards income from business and profession. Further,
he has declared a sum of Rs. 2,80,000/- as salary. Then, he has declared
a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards rent received. The said income was
charged under the head of house property.
43. Naturally, as his functional disability has been ascertained
at 100%, the petitioner shall not be able to earn anything from his
business or profession. However, due to his disability, the rental income
i.e. the income from property shall not be effected. The Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)
6 SCC 121 held that for calculating compensation, the income of the
victim less the income tax should be treated as the actual income.
Further, in case titled as Universal Sompo General Insurance vs Sh.
Dinesh Kumar Singh & Ors MAC.APP. 106/2025 decided by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 9 June, 2025, it has been observed that
the Tribunal must deduct applicable income tax and other permissible
statutory deductions from the gross income of the deceased while
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.07.19
17:06:30 +0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 23 of 42
computing compensation payable to the petitioner. It was observed that:
“13. The learned Tribunal after a perusal of the salary
slips and testimony of PW-2 who proved the said
salary slips assessed the income of the deceased at
₹34,300/- per month. Thereby his gross annual income
would be ₹4,11,600/-. The said income undoubtedly
would be subject to tax as applicable at the relevant
time. Thus, the learned Tribunal in the opinion of this
Court ought to have considered the applicable tax and
its deduction for the purpose of assessing the income
of the deceased.
15. Even though the gross income of ₹4,11,600/- is
subject to payment of tax under the relevant slab,
however, the assessee is also entitled to benefit of
standard deduction and other benefits as available to
the tax payers.”
44. Hence, after deduction of his rental income, his gross
income as per his ITR is assessed to be Rs. 4,17,942/-. After the
standard deductions his income comes to Rs. 3,196,74/-. The said
amount is assessed to be his annual income. Hence, his monthly income
comes to Rs.26,639.50 (round of to Rs. 26,640/-). In view of the nature
of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, it could be safely assumed that
the petitioner has become unfit for work for rest of his life after the
accident and he could not have worked for about 06 months due to the
injuries. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to the
loss of income for 06 months i.e. Rs. 26,640/- x 6 = Rs. 1,59,840/-.
Future Medical Expenses
45. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has suffered 53 %
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:06:24
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 24 of 42
disability and that he is still under treatment. The petitioner initially
spent about Rs. 11 lacs on the treatment. However, the lion’s share of
those expenses were towards his surgeries. From the medical documents
filed after the conclusion of trial, it can be seen that the petitioner
requires doctor’s consultation and medicines. In view of the same, a
lumpsum sum of Rs. 5 lacs is granted towards future medical expenses.
Special diet:
46. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- per month
towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support his plea, but
keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems
that he must have required special diet and must have incurred
expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
47. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on conveyance, however, considering his injuries, this Tribunal is of the
view that the petitioner must have spent money on conveyance thus, the
petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards conveyance charges.
Attendant charges:
48. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on an attendant. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Pritam Singh vs Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:06:35
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 25 of 42
Oriental Insurance Co. & Ors. MAC.APP. 952/2011 decided on 28
March, 2016, wherein it has been observed as under:
“13. The tribunal calculated the attendant charges that were
incurred by the claimant during the treatment till the filing
of the petition at `3,35,000/- but for future such expenses it
awarded ` 50,000/-, in lumpsum. This may not be a correct
approach to the issue. Since the claimant has been rendered
permanently disabled to the extent of 100%, there is no
doubt that he would require constant presence of attendant
throughout his life. In these circumstances, the proper
course would be to take care of attendant charges incurred
during treatment and for future on the assumption that he
would need to engage an attendant on regular basis. The
expenditure towards this end can be computed on the basis
of minimum wages of an unskilled worker relevant to the
date of accident which was ` 3516 per month. Calculated
thus, the compensation for attendant charges comes to
(3516 x 12 x 15) ` 6,32,800/-, rounded off to ` 6,35,000/-.”
49. In the present case, the petitioner has not suffered such
disability due to which he is confined to bed. However, considering his
cognitive disability and the fact that he may need an attendant in future.
Hence, applying the same principle as applied by the Hon’ble High
Court, the petitioner is awarded attendant charges as per the minimum
wages of an unskilled worker relevant to the date of accident which was
Rs. 16,506/- per month.
Pain & Suffering:
50. The petitioner/injured has claim Rs. 15,00,000/- under the
head pain and suffering. As per medical documents, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries and also sustained 53% permanent disability.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:06:39
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 26 of 42
It is not possible to quantify the compensation admissible to petitioner
for the shock, pain and sufferings etc. which he actually suffered
because of the above injuries, but as stated above, an effort has to be
made to compensate him for the same in a just and reasonable manner.
Hence, keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by
petitioner and duration of the treatment taken by him etc., an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- is being awarded to him towards pain and sufferings
during the said period of his treatment and immobility. Thus, he is
awarded a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings to
the petitioner.
Mental and physical shock:
51. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- for loss
due to mental shock. Although, there is nothing on record to prove the
same but keeping in view his injuries, it cannot be denied that he would
definitely have suffered mental agony. Hence, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under head of “Loss due to Mental & Physical
Shock”.
Loss of amenities:
52. The petitioner/injured has not claimed any amount under
this head.
Disfiguration:
53. The petitioner/injured has claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- under
this head. Disfiguration generally implies spoiling or marring the
appearance of something, especially a person’s face or body. In the Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 27 of 42
17:06:43
+0530
present case, there is no such evidence of any disfiguration being caused
to the petitioner. Hence, no compensation is awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
Loss of marriage prospects
54. Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
55. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- under
this head. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the
petitioner, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this
head.
Loss of future earnings due to disability:
56. As mentioned above, the functional disability of the
petitioner has been assessed to be 100%. This Tribunal has already
assumed the monthly income of petitioner to be Rs. 26,640/- at the
relevant time. As far as the age of petitioner at the time of accident is
concerned, as per the petitioner’s PAN card Ex. PW1/5 and Aadhar
card Ex. PW1/6, his date of birth is 27.10.1974. The date of accident is
17.08.2022. Hence, the age of petitioner as on the date of accident was
48 years but less than 49 years. Therefore, in view of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr.,(2009) 6 SCC 121, which has also been
upheld by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a
recent judgment dated 31.10.2017 given in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. SLP (Civil) No. 25590 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:06:47 +0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 28 of 42
of 2014, the multiplier of ’13’ is held applicable for calculating the loss
of future earnings of petitioner arising out of his above disability.
57. Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700
(SC), the future prospects of the petitioner shall be 25% as he was
within the age bracket of 46-50 years at the time of accident. As already
discussed in the preceding para, the income of the petitioner has been
taken as Rs. 26,640/-. In view of the above, the loss of Income on
account of functional disability is calculated as under:
Monthly income Rs. 26,640/-
Annual Income Rs. 26,640/- x 12 =
Rs. 3,19,680/-
Add Future Prospects @25% Rs. 79,920/-
Total income Rs. 3,99,600/-
Disability @ 100% Rs. 3,99,600/- x 100%= Rs.
3,99,600/-
Loss of Income after multiplier Rs. 3,99,600/- x 13 = Rs.
(13) 51,94,800/-
58. Thus, keeping in view the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner as well as the disability suffered by him, it is held that the
petitioner shall be entitled to Rs. 51,94,800/- under the head future loss
of income.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:06:51
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 29 of 42
59. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 3,92,710/- Monthly income of injured Rs. 26,640/- Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 1,59,840/-. Add future prospects 25%
Loss of future income (income X Rs. 51,94,800/-
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure : Future Rs. 5,00,000/-
medical expenses
Expense on special diet Rs. 15,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 15,000/-
Attendant charges Rs. 16,506/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.
25,74,936/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 1,00,000/- =
Suffering Rs. 2,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Nil
Disfiguration Nil
Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 30 of 42
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:06:55
+0530
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
Total Rs. 91,02,286/-
Less Contributory Negligence Rs. 22,75,571.50
(25%)
Total Rs. 68,26,714.50 (rounded off to
Rs. 68,26,715/-)
60. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 17.08.2022 till realization,
totalling to the tune of Rs. 86,20,435/-.
DISBURSEMENT
61. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month.
62. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:07:00
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 31 of 42
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 86,20,435/-
(Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Twenty Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Five
only), Rs.9,20,435/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Thousand Four
Hundred Thirty Five only ) be released to the petitioner/claimant
immediately in his MACAD bank account maintained at State Bank of
India, THC bearing no. 44207359333, IFSC no. SBIN0000726, CIF no.
85309839896.
63. The balance amount of Rs.77,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy
Seven Lakhs only) shall be put in 110 monthly fixed deposits in his
name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs. 70,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 110 months
respectively, with cumulative interest, in terms of the directions
contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021.
Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall
automatically be transferred in his saving account maintained in a
nationalized bank situated near the place of his residence without the
facility of cheque book and ATM card.
64. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the
petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving
account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that
no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been
issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued
without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
65. The above FDR(s) shall be prepared with the following
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
17:07:04
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 32 of 42
conditions as enumerated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide orders
dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name
to be added in the saving account or fixed
deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving
bank accounts of the claimants shall be an
individual saving bank account and not a joint
account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by
the bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of
maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be
credited by the ECS in the saving bank account
of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or
premature discharge be allowed on the fixed
deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any
cheque book and/or debit card to claimants.
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. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the
account of claimants so that no debit card be
issued in respect of the account of claimants
from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on Digitally
the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:07:08
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 33 of 42
no cheque books and/or debit card have been
issued and shall not be issued without the
permission of the Court and the claimant shall
produced the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court for compliance.”
66. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 17.08.2022
Name of the Injured: Rajeev Kumar
Age of the Injured: Presently 51 years
Occupation of the Injured: Businessman
Income of the Injured: Rs. 26,640/-
Nature of Injury: Grievous
Medical Treatment taken: Max Hospital, Delhi.
Period of Hospitalization: 17.08.2022 till 05.09.2022
Whether any permanent: Yes.
disability?
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 3,92,710/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 25,74,936/-
Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.07.19
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 34 of 42
17:07:24 +0530
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 15,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Rs. 26,640/-
(vi) Loss of income x 6 months Rs. 1,59,840/-
(vii) Add future prospects 25%
viii) Any other loss which may Rs. 5,00,000/-
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life (Future medical
expenses)
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs. 1,00,000+ Rs. 1,00,000/- =
(ii) Pain and Sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 50,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed 100%
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 100%
capacity in relation to disability
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 35 of 42
17:07:15
+0530
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Rs. 51,94,800/-
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 91,02,286/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
Less Contributory Negligence Rs. 22,75,571.50
(25%)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 68,26,715/-
Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous -
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 17,93,719.25 (rounded off to Rs.
award w.e.f. 17.08.2022 till 17,93,720/-)
realization
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 86,20,435/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para nos. 62 & 63
10. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.77,00,000/-
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para nos. 62 & 63
award amount of the claimant(s)
12. Next date for compliance of the 18.08.2025
award
LIABILITY:
67. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:07:34
+0530MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 36 of 42
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
68. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/
Insurance Company has submitted that respondent no.1 has violated the
terms of the insurance policy as he was not having a valid driving
license at the time of the accident and thus, respondent no. 3 is not
liable to pay any amount. In this regard, he has relied upon the
statement of PW-5 IO HC Surender, who stated that during
investigation, the respondent no.1 disclosed that he was not holding a
valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Ld. Counsel has further
relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Go Digit
General Insurance Co. v. Mohd Javed MAC. App 416/2025 decided on
09.07.2025, wherein in a similar matter, the Hon’ble High Court has
observed that:
“So far as concerns the award of recovery rights, clearly that
appears to be an inadvertent error by the Ld. Trial Court since,
after the amendment to Section 166 (3) of the MV Act w.e.f.
01.04.2022 which is the provision for grant of recovery rights
is no longer available in the statute book.”
69. Therefore, it is proved that respondent no.1 did not have a
valid driving license at the time of the accident and thus, there is a
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further, in view
of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the insurance company
stands exonerated. Since, it was the duty of the owner also to ensure
that the driver possesses a valid driving license, the respondent nos. 1
and 2, jointly and severally are held liable to pay the compensation to Digitally signed
RUCHIKA by RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date: 2025.07.19
17:07:29 +0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 37 of 42
the petitioner. Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
70. The respondents no. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally
directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 68,26,715/- (Rupees Sixty Eight Lakhs,
Twenty Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifteen only) along with
interest @ 9% from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 17.08.2022 till
realization with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under
intimation to the claimant, failing which the said respondent shall be
liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period of delay beyond
30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on
14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
71. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.19
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 38 of 42
17:07:39
+0530
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
18.08.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 18th Day of July, 2025 Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:07:42 +0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 39 of 42
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 17.08.2022
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report Not attached
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
Not attached
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
Not attached
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not attached
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not attached
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII -
23.12.2022
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 09.05.2023
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:07:47
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 40 of 42
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 18.07.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 05.01.2023
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
10.07.2025
place of their residence
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhar Card?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:07:51
+0530
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 41 of 42
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
of passing of the Award to
was recorded 27.05.2025.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.19
17:07:55
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
18.07.2025
MACT No.21/2023 Rajeev Kumar Vs. Suhail Qureshi and ors. Page 42 of 42
[ad_1]
Source link