Delhi District Court
Sanjay (Dar) vs Aditya Sareen (36/21,Crp) on 11 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHELLY ARORA
DISTRICT JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PO MACT (SE), SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
MACT No. 290/22
FIR no. 36/21
PS : C.R. Park
U/s : 279/338 IPC
CNR No. DLSE01-004112-2022
Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr.
Sanjay
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Khasra No. 171/02 near
Satdham Mandir, Neb Sarai,
New Delhi. .....Petitioner
Versus
1. Aditya Sareen
S/o Sh. Rajesh Kumar
R/o D 2 49-250, D Block,
Gandhi Vihar, Adarsh Nagar,
New Delhi. .....R-1/driver-cum-owner
2. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
5th Floor, Tower (1) Steller II, Park E-2
New Delhi. .....R-2/Ins. Co.
Date of accident : 04.02.2021
Date of filing of DAR : 05.05.2022
Date of Decision : 11.03.2025
AWARD
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Detailed Accident Report was filed by police in terms of
provisions of Motor Vehicle Act in respect of injuries sustained
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 1 of 37
by Sh. Sanjay (hereinafter called the claimant) on account of
alleged rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration
No. DL 4 CAW 3977 (hereinafter called the offending vehicle)
driven and owned by Sh. Aditya Sareen (hereinafter called the
Respondent No.1) and and insured with HDFC Ergo General
Insurance Company (hereinafter called the insurance company),
which is being treated as Claim Petition in view of the provisions
contained in such Act.
Brief Facts :
2. Information regarding accident in question was received at
PS C. R. Park on 04.02.2021 vide GD no.06A, upon receipt of
which SI Nirankar Kumar proceeded to the spot of accident near
G. K. Flyover, however, injured or any eye witness was not found
at the spot. Subsequently, again on receipt of DD no.8A, dated
04.02.2021 with respect to MLC no. 500262725/2021, IO
reached AIIMS Trauma Center and obtained MLC of injured
Sanjay with remarks "A/H/O RTA, Visible injury Laceration
measuring 2*1 CM AT CM at 7' O Clock position 1 cm from
anal verge". Patient was declared unfit for statement. FIR was
registered on the basis of MLC of injured. Statement of injured
was recorded wherein he stated that he made his living as
vegetable seller and on 04.02.2021 at about 4:00 AM when he
was going to purchase vegetable from Okhla Mandi on his horse
cart and reached near Outer Ring Road Bus Stand at about 04.25
AM, he was hit by a speeding and rashly driven Honda City Car
bearing Registration No. DL 4CAW 3977 from back side,
because of which he fell down from the horse cart and sustained
injuries. He immediately noted down the registration number of
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 2 of 37
the offending vehicle. It is stated that driver of such Honda City
Car fled away with his vehicle. Someone called PCR and he was
admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center. He also stated that due to
accident, his horse also sustained multiple injuries. Site Plan was
prepared. Notice under Section 133 M.V. Act was served upon
owner, who confirmed that he himself was driving the vehicle at
the time of accident. Offending vehicle was taken into police
possession and got mechanically inspected. Documents
pertaining to the offending vehicle which were got verified. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by
Investigating Officer before Ld. Concerned Court under relevant
penal provisions. DAR was also filed by the IO.
REPLY:
3. Notice of DAR was issued to the contesting parties. Any
reply was not filed by R-1 and his right to file reply was closed
vide order dated 22.05.2024.
4. Legal Offer was filed by Ld. Counsel for insurance
company underlying that it did not raise any statutory defence.
ISSUES :
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were
framed vide order dated 22.05.2024:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 16.03.2020 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No. DL 4CAW 3977
being driven and owned by R-1 and insured by
R-2? OPP.
ii). Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 3 of 37
compensation and if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP
iii). Relief.
6. Perusal of issue no. 1 reflects that date of accident is
wrongly mentioned. To avoid any confusion, issue no.1 is
reframed as under:
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a
road traffic accident on 04.02.2021 due to rash and
negligent driving of vehicle No. DL 4CAW 3977
being driven and owned by R-1 and insured by
R-2? OPP.
Disability:
7. Upon an application for assessment of disability, Disability
Report dated 02.09.2023 was received as per which claimant was
assessed with 90% physical impairment with respect to both
lower limbs.
Evidence:
8. Matter was listed for evidence. Any evidence, however,
has not been led by either of the contesting parties. It was jointly
requested that since both the sides do not dispute the findings of
DAR and also as legal offer has already been filed, matter may
be decided and disposed off on the basis of material available on
record.
9. The admissible compensation is accordingly being decided
on the basis of DAR.
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 4 of 37
DISCUSSION
10. On the basis of material on record, issue wise findings are
as under :
ISSUE NO.1
i). Whether the injured suffered injuries in a road
traffic accident on 04.02.2021 due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle No. DL 4CAW 3977 being driven and
owned by R-1 and insured by R-2? OPP.
11. What is required to be ascertained is whether rash and
negligent driving of offending vehicle resulted in accident which
caused injuries to the claimant.
12. It has been held in catena of cases that negligence has to be
decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and
a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the
proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to the
proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are
not applicable (support drawn from the case of Bimla Devi &
Ors vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & ors [(2009) 13
SC 530, [Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India
Assurance Company Limited, [2001 ACJ 421 SC], [National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana cited as [2009 ACJ
287 Del].
13. FIR was registered on the basis of information received
about occurrence of incident on 04.02.2021 vide DD Entry
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 5 of 37
no.82A. There is no delay in registration of FIR or in intimation
to the police authorities to set law in motion. Statement of
claimant was also subsequently recorded who categorically
narrated the mode and manner of the accident as well as
registration number of said offending vehicle. Same has been
accepted in response to the notice u/s 133 MV Act. Therefore,
there is no dispute with respect to the identification of the
offending vehicle or that of the driver and owner of the said
vehicle. MLC records that the injured was brought to the hospital
at 05.18 am while accident happened at 04.25 am which also
substantiate the accident and the injuries suffered by the injured
on account of the said accident. The Mechanical Inspection
Report record fresh damages on the offending vehicle as well as
horse wooden cart. The site plan is also indicative of the
accident. The entire investigation report concludes that the driver
of the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the vehicle
which is why the accident happened. The above discussion also
reflects that there cannot be any alternate view than to accept that
the accident happened on account of speedy and rash driving, in
utter disregard to the traffic rules by the driver of the offending
vehicle.
14. Legal Offer was filed in this matter conceding that no
statutory defence has been raised in this matter, further, no
dispute about rash driving by driver of offending vehicle, having
caused the accident has been made.
15. R-1 has opted not to even barely disputing or denying the
findings of charge-sheet and DAR, nothing remains in contention
any further. On the basis of discussions made above, Issue No.1
is decided accordingly, in favour of the petitioner.
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 6 of 37
ISSUE NO. 2
"Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation and if so, to what extent and from
whom? OPP"
16. Section 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.
(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 Claims Tribunal, deposit the entire amount
awarded in such manner as the Claims Tribunal may
direct."
17. Before putting in frame the position of law, it is noted that
the process of determining the compensation by the court is
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 7 of 37
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).
18. 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 Ram Yadav vs. New
India Insurance Company Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683] .
19. This Tribunal has been tasked with determination of just
compensation. The observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Divisional controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty &
Anr., (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 special 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.. ..."
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 8 of 37
20. 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."
21. 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.
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
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 9 of 37
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), (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)
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 10 of 37
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. Decisions of this Court and the High Courts
contain necessary guidelines for award under these
heads, if necessary. What usually poses some
difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future
earnings on account of permanent disability--Item (ii)
(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this
case.
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to
permanent disability
8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability
to perform an activity in the manner considered
normal for a human being. Permanent disability refers
to the residuary incapacity or loss of use of some part
of the body, found existing at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is
likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured.
Temporary disability refers to the incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body on account of the injury,
which will cease to exist at the end of the period of
treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can
be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability
refers to a person's inability to perform all the duties
and bodily functions that he could perform before the
accident, though he is able to perform some of them
and is still able to engage in some gainful activity.
Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability
to perform any avocation or employment related
activities as a result of the accident. The permanent
disabilities that may arise from motor accident
injuries, are of a much wider range when compared to
the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
("the Disabilities Act", for short). But if any of the
disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i) of the
Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 11 of 37
the purpose of claiming compensation.
9. The percentage of permanent disability is expressed
by the doctors with reference to the whole body, or
more often than not, with reference to a particular
limb. When a disability certificate states that the
injured has suffered permanent disability to an extent
of 45% of the left lower limb, it is not the same as
45% permanent disability with reference to the whole
body. The extent of disability of a limb (or part of the
body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total
functions of that limb, obviously cannot be assumed
to be the extent of disability of the whole body. If
there is 60% permanent disability of the right hand
and 80% permanent disability of left leg, it does not
mean that the extent of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body is 140% (that is 80% plus
60%). If different parts of the body have suffered
different percentages of disabilities, the sum total
thereof expressed in terms of the permanent disability
with reference to the whole body cannot obviously
exceed 100%.
10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability
as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation
under the head of loss of future earnings would
depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent
disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should
not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent
disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of
earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage
of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of
earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability
will be different from the percentage of permanent
disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all
cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent
disability would result in a corresponding loss of
earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence
produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will
hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity.
In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage)
of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage)
of permanent disability will result in award of either
too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the
effect of the permanent disability on the earning
capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of
earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the
income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to
arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the
standard multiplier method used to determine loss of
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 12 of 37
dependency). We may however note that in some
cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the
Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of
earning capacity as a result of the permanent
disability, is approximately the same as the percentage
of permanent disability in which case, of course, the
Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for
determination of compensation. (See for example, the
decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 10 SCC 254 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258 : (2010) 10 Scale 298] and
Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010)
10 SCC 341 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1285 : (2010) 8
Scale 567] )
12. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether
there is any permanent disability and, if so, the extent
of such permanent disability. This means that the
Tribunal should consider and decide with reference to
the evidence:
(i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary;
(ii) if the disablement is permanent, whether it is
permanent total disablement or permanent partial
disablement;
(iii) if the disablement percentage is expressed with
reference to any specific limb, then the effect of such
disablement of the limb on the functioning of the
entire body, that is, the permanent disability suffered
by the person.
If the Tribunal concludes that there is no permanent
disability then there is no question of proceeding
further and determining the loss of future earning
capacity. But if the Tribunal concludes that there is
permanent disability then it will proceed to ascertain
its extent. After the Tribunal ascertains the actual
extent of permanent disability of the claimant based
on the medical evidence, it has to determine whether
such permanent disability has affected or will affect
his earning capacity.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what
activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the
permanent disability and what he could not do as a
result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant
for awarding compensation under the head of loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 13 of 37
avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out
whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from
earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite
of the permanent disability, the claimant could still
effectively carry on the activities and functions, which
he was earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was
prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions, but could carry on some other
or lesser scale of activities and functions so that he
continues to earn or can continue to earn his
livelihood.
.
.
.
.
19. We may now summarise the principles discussed
above:
(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with
reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be
assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning
capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of
earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of
permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the
Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
the percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured claimant or
who examined him subsequently to assess the extent
of his permanent disability can give evidence only in
regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss
of earning capacity is something that will have to be
assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the
evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in
different percentages of loss of earning capacity in
different persons, depending upon the nature of
profession, occupation or job, age, education and
other factors.””
22. The above-said principles have been placed reliance upon
in a recent judgment reported as Sidram Vs. The DivisionalMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 14 of 37
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.
23. 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.
PECUNIARY DAMAGES
24. Damages under pecuniary heads primarily involves
reimbursement of actual amount spent on account of injury
suffered in an accident to undo the monetary loss, suffered by the
claimant, as ascertainable from the evidence on record. Given
hereunder are various heads under which compensation for
pecuniary damages is assessed:
(i) Expenditure on Medical Treatment:
No evidence has been adduced in this matter. Any medical
bill has also not been filed. Treatment of injured was undertaken
in AIIMS Trauma Centre. Moreover, sundry medical expenses
cannot be ruled out. A sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards the
sundry medical expenses. Hence claimant is awardedMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 15 of 37
Rs.20,000/-.
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance :
No bill for conveyance has been filed. Nature of injury is
grievous, which led to 90% permanent physical impairment with
respect to both lower limbs. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded
towards expenditure on conveyance as per guess work.
(iii) Expenditure on special diet :
There is no prescription for special diet. The nature of
injury is grievous. On the basis of nature and extent of injury, it
can be inferred that injured would have required protein rich
nutritious diet for prompt recovery. An amount of Rs.30,000/- is
awarded towards special diet.
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant :
No evidence has been adduced by the claimant. There is
nothing on record to prove any expenditure towards nursing and
attendant. Nature of injury sustained by injured is grievous which
further led to 90% permanent physical impairment in relation to
both lower limbs. It is settled that even though any formal
nursing attendant is not engaged still the services provided by
family members also have to be fairly compensated. Considering
the nature of permanent disablement, it can be inferred that
injured would necessarily require services of attendant for the
rest of his life. An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded towards
cost of nursing/attendant.
(v) Loss of Income/earning :
No evidence has been adduced by the claimant to prove his
income or employment. As per record, he was a vegetable sellerMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 16 of 37
at the time of accident. However, there is nothing on record to
substantiate his income or avocation. Any educational documents
has also not been filed. As per Aadhar Card filed on record, he
was resident of Delhi. Accordingly, his income is assessed as
per minimum wages applicable in Delhi for an unskilled
workman at the time of accident which was Rs. 15,492/-.
(v-a) Treatment of injured was undertaken in AIIMS Trauma
Center as per MLC. Any discharge summary has not been filed
on record. Any other document with respect to period of
treatment, any prescription of doctor, hospitalization is not
available with DAR. Considering the nature of injuries, it can be
inferred that he would not have resumed his work at least 6
months post accident. Thus, loss of income during treatment is
computed to be Rs. 15,492/- x 6, which comes to Rs.92,952/-.
(vi) Loss of future income/earning : It is settled that a person is
required to be compensated not just for the physical injury but
also for the loss he has suffered as well as the loss which he
might entail for the rest of his life on account of those injuries
which he sustained in the accident. This necessarily means that
he is required to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy normal amenities, which he would have
enjoyed but for the injury, his inability to earn as much as he used
to earn or could have earned. (Support drawn from the judgment
titled as C. K. Subramania Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (1969) 3
SCC 64.
(vi-a) Disability Assessment Certificate was received, as
per which he was opined to have suffered 90% permanent
physical disability with respect to both lower limbs.
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 17 of 37
(vi-b) Before proceeding further, it is important to
understand as to what disability means and also types thereof.
This aspect has been delved into by Hon’ble SC in Raj Kumar
(supra):
“8. Disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability to perform
an activity in the manner considered normal for a human being.
Permanent disability refers to the residuary incapacity or loss of
use of some part of the body, found existing at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation, after achieving the
maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is likely to
remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary disability
refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body on
account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of the
period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can be
either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a
person’s inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person’s inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result
of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from
motor accident injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“the Disabilities Act”,
for short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in Section 2(i)
of the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a
motor accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose
of claiming compensation.”
(vi-c) The term ‘disability’ means the decrements to the
functional efficacy of body of injured whereas ‘functioning’
encompass all the body functions and activities for an
independent life. Functional disability is to determine the extent
of loss or extent of restrictive functionality considering the nature
of activities required to be necessarily performed in efficient
discharge of duties and the limb effected. This computes the
extent of adverse effect of physical disability upon the functional
efficacy of an injured person, in turn adversely impacting his
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 18 of 37
earning capacity. The process entails understanding and
enumerating the skill set required for performing specific
activities. To sum up, functional disability basically measures the
extent of ability having been compromised to carry out basic
everyday tasks or even more complex tasks required for and
independent living. The limitations may occur on account of
disability in the personal sphere, in the social sphere and in the
occupational sphere. In the personal sphere it may encompass the
daily activities of a person, his body function and his
involvement in basis life situations. At the societal level, it could
mean difficulty in involvement and participation in social and
community activities interfering the interpersonal interaction and
relationship adversely impacting the civic life. When disability
restricts the vocation or employment avenues to make earning for
his living, it falls in the category of disability in the occupational
sphere. The disability might occur on account of age or any
illness and in the case at hand by way of an accident. A person
living a normal life in particular set of circumstance and making
his living by engaging in any work has suffered disability which
might impede his daily life activities, both on a personal and
social scale and might also impact his ability to continue earning
as much as before and his future employment avenues.
(vi-d) What is thus required to be assessed is the effect and
impact of disability upon the working efficiency of injured and
whether it would adversely impact his earning capabilities in
future. It is settled that the Tribunal should not mechanically
apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of
economic loss or loss of earning capacity.
(vi-e) Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines for
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 19 of 37
the Tribunal to be able to arrive at an objective figure to quantify
the loss for the purpose of computing the compensation in the
judgment of Raj Kumar (supra). Relevant extracts of this
judgment has already been reproduced above.
(vi-f) Further in the case of “Mohan Soni v Ram Avtar Tomar &
Ors. I (2012) ACC 1 (SC), the question at hand was deliberated
and following observations as relevant in the context were made:
“In the context of loss of future earning, any physical
disability resulting from an accident has to be judged with
reference to the nature of work being performed by the
person suffering the disability. This is the basic premise
and once that is grasped, it clearly follows that the same
injury or loss may affect two different persons in different
ways. Take the case of a marginal farmer who does his
cultivation work himself and ploughs his land with his own
two hands; or the puller of a cycle-rickshaw, one of the
main means of transport in hundreds of small towns all
over the country. The loss of one of the legs either to the
marginal farmer or the cycle-rickshaw-puller would be the
end of the road insofar as their earning capacity is
concerned. But in case of a person engaged in some kind of
desk work in an office, the loss of a leg may not have the
same effect. The loss of a leg (or for that matter the loss of
any limb) to anyone is bound to have very traumatic effects
on one’s personal, family or social life but the loss of one
of the legs to a person working in the office would not
interfere with his work/earning capacity in the same degree
as in the case of a marginal farmer or a cycle-rickshaw-
puller.”
(vi-g) The question of assessment of impact of disability on the
earning capacity has been dealt in several cases but it is
understood that each case has to be evaluated on its contextual
dynamics established by way of evidence at hand. It brings us to
a question whether extent of permanent disability as medically
determined can simply be taken to be the extent of functional
disability and hence, the loss of earning capacity. It has been held
in various pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 20 of 37
and Hon’ble High Court that equating the two as a criteria would
result in an inobjective and absurd compensation. There however,
might be certain cases where the two would correspond to each
other but it cannot be mechanically applied rather requires
evaluation of applicable factors independently in each case to
reach at a fair quantification of loss of earning capacity.
(vi-h) In the present case, the injured is stated to be a vegetable
seller. As a vegetable seller, his profession requires constant
movement to purchase stock of vegetables from the market, for
transportation of goods, for setting up a stall. However, with
severe disability wherein he has suffered 90% physical
impairment with relation to his both lower limbs, he shall face
difficulty in walking, standing or pushing vegetable cart. It is
almost impossible for him to continue his work independently.
He would have to rely on others for transportation and stall
management due to his restricted mobility. Given these factors,
his functional disability in terms of earning capacity is assessed
to be at least 90%.
(vii) Future Prospect
(vii-a) In case of Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), it is also held
that future prospect (as laid down in the well considered
judgment of National Insurance Company v Pranay Sethi (2017)
16 SCC 680) shall be payable, not only in fatal cases but also in
the case of permanent disability. The observations made in the
said case as relevant to the context are reproduced hereunder:
“6. The principle consistently followed by this court 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 ofMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 21 of 37
amenities and other payments. These general principles have
been stated and reiterated in several decisions.
7. Two questions arise for consideration: one, whether in
cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a
motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from
compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future
Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind
Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683.
This court referred to the pronouncements in R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC
551; Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.
Dhananka (2009) 6 SCC 1; Reshma Kumari v. Madan
Mohan (2009) 13 SCC 422; Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar,
(2011) 1 SCC 343. Govind Yadav spelt out these principles
by stating that the courts should, “in determining the
quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident,
who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the
victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then
efforts should always be made to award adequate
compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment,
but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a
normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have
enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident.”
These decisions were also followed in ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018)
3 SCC 686. prospects too; and two, the extent of disability.
On the first question, the High Court no doubt, is technically
correct in holding that Pranay Sethi involved assessment of
compensation in a case where the victim died. However, it
went wrong in saying that later, the three-judge bench
decision in Jagdish was not binding, but rather that the
subsequent decision in Anant10 to the extent that it did not
award compensation for future prospects, was binding. This
court is of the opinion that there was no justification for the
High Court to have read the previous rulings of this court, to
exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects
in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in
permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading of Pranay
Sethi11 is illogical, because it denies altogether the
possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in
accident cases – and admits such possibility of future
prospects, in case of the victim’s death.
.
.
(xviii). Hon’ble Supreme Court further discussed several
cases involving permanent disability and observed as under:
20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic
approach, but instead, view the matter taking into accountMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 22 of 37
the realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of
disabilities, and compensation under various heads.
.
.
….What is to be seen, as emphasized by decision after
decision, is the impact of the injury upon the income
generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a leg or
arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in
relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim;
there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready
application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the
previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating
capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected”.
(vii-b) As per Aadhar Card filed with DAR his date of birth
is 14.02.1990. As such, on the date of accident he was above 30
years and 11 months on the date of accident . Since the injured
was under the age of 40 (at the time of accident) and was
employed on a fixed salary, thus as laid down in the case of
Pranay Sethi (Supra), the percentage towards future prospect is
taken to be @ 40 % upon application of category of ”self-
employed or on a fixed salary”.
(vii-c) The multiplier method was coined by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma v Delhi
Transport Corporation & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 3483 of 2008,
decided on 15.04.2009 to ascertain the future loss of income in
relation to the age of the deceased, in order to bring about the
uniformity and consistency in determination of compensation
payable in fatal and serious injuries matters. Relevant
observations with respect to the multiplier method in the
abovementioned case read as under:
“The multiplier method involves the ascertainment of the
loss of dependency or the multiplicand having regard to the
circumstances of the case and capitalizing the multiplicandMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 23 of 37
by an appropriate multiplier. The choice of the multiplier is
determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the
claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to
what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest
appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the
multiplicand by way of annual interest. In ascertaining this,
regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the
capital sum should also be consumed-up over the period
for which the dependency is expected to last.”
(vii-d) The standard multiplier method was directed to be
applied not only to ascertain the loss of dependancy in fatal
accident case but also to determine future loss of earning in
serious disability matters as well {as laid in the case of Raj
Kumar (supra)}. In a recent Judgment of Pappu Dev Yadav
(supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relied upon and
reiterated the principles laid in various judgments passed by it in
the case of Sr. Antony @ Antony Swamy v Managing Director
KSRTC, Civil Appeal No. 2551 of 2018 and held that
stereotypical or myopic approach must be avoided and pragmatic
reality of life must be taken into account to determine the impact
of extent of disability upon the income generated capacity of
victim.
(vii-e) The income of the injured per annum as determined
upon appreciation of evidence, thus, forms the multiplicand. A
table of multiplier with reference to the age was laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The appropriate multiplier,
applicable in this case would be 17 (for age group between 26 to
30 years).
(vii-f) In view of the above discussion of law, the
calculation under future loss of income in the present case is as
under:
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 24 of 37
(a) Annual income (Rs. 15,492/- x 12) = Rs.1,85,904/-
(b) Future prospect
(40% of Rs.1,85,904/-) = Rs. 74,362/-
-----------------
(c) Total = Rs.2,60,266/-
-----------------
(d) Thus, Multiplicand = Rs.2,60,266/-
(e) Hence, the ‘Total Loss of Future Income’ shall be :-
Percentage of Functional Disability (Multiplicand X Multiplier).
90% (Rs.2,60,266/- x 17) = Rs. 39,82,069/-
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
25. Injured is entitled to both, pecuniary as well as non-
pecuniary damages. As the name suggests, pecuniary damages
are designed to make good the pecuniary loss which can be
ascertained in terms of money whereas non pecuniary damages
are general damages to compensate the injured for mental and
physical shock, pain, suffering, loss of expectation of life,
inconvenience, hardship, frustration, stress, dejectment and
unhappiness suffered by him on account of injuries sustained in
the accident. It takes into account all the aspects of a normal life
which deluded injured on account of accident. Given the nature
of heads covered, it is bound to involve guess work on the part of
Tribunal involving some hypothetical consideration as well,
primarily considering the special circumstances of the injured
and the effect of those upon his future life. Regarding non-
pecuniary loss, following was stated in Halsbury’s Laws of
England, 4 th Edition, Vol. 12 (page 446):
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 25 of 37
“Non-pecuniary loss: the pattern: Damages awarded for
pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a
conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which
society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts
in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been
evolved a set of conventional principles providing a
provisional guide to the comparative severity of different
injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which a
particular injury will currently fall. The particular
circumstances of the plaintiff, including his age and any
unusual deprivation he may suffer, is reflected in the actual
amount of the award.
(As also referred in the case of Sidram…………………)
7. In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of
India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, the Supreme Court held that the
object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff
compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered.
The Court further held that the elements of damage
recognized by law are divisible into two main groups:
pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss. While the pecuniary loss
is capable of being arithmetically worked out, the non-
pecuniary loss is not so calculable. Non-pecuniary loss is
compensated in terms of money, not as a substitute or
replacement for other money, but as a substitute, what
McGregor says, is generally more important than money: it
is the best that a court can do.
8. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274, the
Supreme Court held that if a collection of cases on the
quantum of damages is to be useful, it must necessarily be
classified in such a way that comparable cases can be
grouped together. No doubt, no two cases are alike but still,
it is possible to make a broad classification which enables
one to bring comparable awards together. Inflation should
be taken into account while calculating damages.
(referred and relied in the case of A. Rupin Manohar Through Sh. S.
Anandha vs Mohd. Ansari & Ors. on 17 August, 2017 JUDGMENT DELHI
HIGH COURT
(a) To sum up, Compensation under non-pecuniary heads
involves objective assessment of the damages in a bid to undo the
loss, the injured would incur on account of his inability to a
normal life and earn as much as he could, but for the injuries
sustained. The whole idea behind assessment for damages for
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 26 of 37
compensation is to put the claimant in the same position in so far
as money can. The very nature of these damages, compulsorily
involves some guesswork and hypothetical considerations,
however, efforts should be made to adjudicate these on the basis
of objective parameters rather than guided by subjective
sympathy. The nature and severity of injury, the age, nature of
disability are some of those parameters. Given hereunder are
various heads under which compensation for non-pecuniary loss
(general damages) is assessed:
Damages for pain, suffering as well as mental and physical shock
on account of injuries:
(b). The mental and physical loss cannot always be
arithmetically computed in terms of money. These form the
intangible losses suffered by injured for no fault of his. Although
any form of human suffering cannot be equated in money,
however, the object remains to compensate in so far as the money
can compensate. Certain observations made by the Supreme
Court of India in R. D. Hattangadi (supra) are relevant in the
context:
“10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the
appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become
paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It
is really difficult in this background to assess the exact
amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered
by the appellant and for having become a lifelong
handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the
physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been
said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as
the compensation payable for any injury suffered during
an accident, the object is to compensate such injury “so far
as money can compensate” because it is impossible to
equate the money with the human sufferings or personal
deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shatteredMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 27 of 37
physical frame.
(c). Certain factors were also laid down for consideration in the
case of The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs Mahadeva Shetty
And Anr Appeal (Civil) 5453 of 2003 further relied in the case of
Sidram (supra) for awarding compensation for pain and
suffering. The observations made in the aforesaid case as relevant
to the context are reproduced hereunder:
“113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as
observed in Pappu Deo Yadav (supra) that Courts should be
mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes
physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep
mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant
trauma of the victim’s having to live in a world entirely
different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and
with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete
personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the judge’s
mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims.
Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the
dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of
the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus
depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome
life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the
able bodied, the victim is thrust into the world of the disabled,
itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and
award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances,
there is resultant affront to the injured victim. [See: Pappu Deo
Yadav (supra)]
(d) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Suresh
(supra) observed as follows:
“2. … There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the
heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the
pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in
the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) stipulates
that there should be grant of “just compensation”. Thus, it
becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine “just
compensation” which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and
simultaneously, should not be a pittance.”
But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 28 of 37
of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of
compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to
question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it
must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss
and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not
law’s doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements
under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a
paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of
enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. (as relied in
the case of Jagdish v Mohan AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT
1347, by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India).
(e) The injured has suffered 90% permanent physical
impairment with respect to his both lower limbs. It is settled that
each case has to be evaluated upon his special circumstances in
the backdrop of deprivation which disability would cause on his
future life. It is a case of substantial permanent disability which is
likely to have adverse impact on mental, emotional and
psychological health of a person having to live with the feeling
that he is no longer a normal person, relegated and pushed into
the difficult world of a disabled person. There is no methodology
to weigh the sufferings in terms of money, however, the Tribunal
is required to engage in some guess work objectively to consider
the peculiar circumstances of the case at hand to be able to award
suitable compensation with the object to place the victim in as
near a position as the victim was in before the accident. An
amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to the injured against pain,
suffering and and trauma sustained in the accident.
Loss of amenities of life:
(f) It compensates the victim on account of his inability to
enjoy the basis amenities of life as any other normal person can,
taking into account the age and the deprivation he would have to
undergo and suffer due to injuries. Certain observations wereMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 29 of 37
made by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Vijay
Kumar Babulal Modi vs State Of Gujarat SPECIAL CIVIL
APPLICATION NO. 20488 of 2017 referred by HSC in the case
of Sidram (supra) which is reproduced hereunder:
“It appears that the claim under this head is to the tune of Rs.3
lac. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any sum under the
head ‘loss of amenities’. We are of the opinion that this head
must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have
been lost due to the injury caused. As per R.D. Hattangadi’s
case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the
inability to walk, run or sit, etc. We include here too the loss of
childhood pleasure such as the ability to freely play, dance,
run, etc., the loss of ability to freely move or travel without
assistance….”
(g) Injured would not be able to perform several tasks on his
own and has become dependent even for basic activities upon his
family members or the services of the attendants, his personal
identity as well as his social identity considering the prejudice
such people are likely to face specially against the backdrop of
their educational, family and social settings, he is going to
evidently lose much more than what we can possibly
contemplate. Least would be to mention that he would be far
from the sense of normalcy of an average human being.
Accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss
of amenities considering the nature of injury and the extent of
disability.
26. The compensation awarded against pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages under various heads is being sequentially put
in a tabulated form hereunder for ease of reference to all
concerned:
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 30 of 37
Sl. no. Pecuniary loss : – Quantum
1. (i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 20,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 50,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.3,00,000/-
(v) Loss of income : Rs.92,952/-
(vi) Loss of future Income: Rs.39,82,064/-
2. Non-Pecuniary Loss :
(i) Compensation of Pain and Rs.5,00,000/-
suffering as well as mental and
physical shock
(ii) Loss of amenities of life : Rs1,00,000/-
(iii) Disfiguration : Nil
Total Compensation Rs.50,75,016/-
Interest As directed below
27. It may be noted that in the judgment of Ram Charan &
Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., MAC Appeal no.
433/2013, decided on 18.10.2022 it was noted regarding rate of
interest:
“25 to evaluate the submission made by counsel for the
applicants, it is imperative to examine the guiding
principles for the grant of interest. In Abati Bezbaruah Vs.
Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148, the
following was held while interpreting section 171 of the
MV Act, 1988:-
Three decisions were cited before us by Mr. A. P. Mohanty,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, in
support of his contentions. No ratio has been laid down in
any of the decisions in regard to the rate of interest and the
rate of interest was awarded on the amount of compensation
as a matter of judicial discretion. The rate of interest must
be just and reasonable depending upon the facts andMACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 31 of 37
circumstances of each case and taking all relevant factors
including inflation, change of economy, policy being
adopted by Reserve Bank of India from time to time, how
long the case is pending, permanent injuries suffered by the
victim, enormity of suffering, loss of future income, loss of
enjoyment of life etc. into consideration. No rate of interest
is fixed under Section 171 of the MV Act 1988. Varying
rates of interest are being awarded by Tribunals, High
Courts and the Supreme Court. Interest can be granted even
if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is
consequential in the eye of the law. Interest liability is
compensation for forbearance or detention of money and
that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out
of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No
principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be
fixed to have a general application in motor accident
provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the
Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of
interest depends upon the statutory provisions mercantile
usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Sec. 34 CPC nor Sec.
4-A(3) of Workmen’s Compensation Act are applicable in
the matter of fixing are of interest in a claim under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at
different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any
hard and fast rule in awarding interest and the award of
interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal of the
High Court as indicated above.”
28. Having regard to the prevailing rate of interest and the
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including in the
case of Erudhaya Priya vs State Express Transport decided on 27
July, 2020, Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2812 OF 2020 [Arising out of
SLP (C) Nos.8495-8496 of 2018], which is three Judges Bench
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, such interest @ 9% per
annum is deemed fit and accordingly granted in the present case
from the date of filing of DAR till realization.
Liability :-
29. It has already been held that No statutory defence has been
raised. Offending vehicle has been held to be validly insured at
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 32 of 37
the time of accident. Insurance company is thus liable to
indemnify owner against liability incurred by him/his behalf
with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of petition
till actual realization.(If there is any order regarding exclusion of
interest for specific period, same be complied at the time of
calculation of award amount. Further, if any auction proceed is
received, same be adjusted in the final award amount).
30. The award amount shall be deposited with State Bank of
India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi by way of
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS in account of MACT SOUTH EAST – 02,
A/c No. 42706870765, IFS Code SBIN0014244 and MICR code
110002342 under intimation to the Nazir along with calculation
of interest and to the Counsel for the petitioner.
MODE OF DISBURSEMENT OF THE AWARD
AMOUNT TO THE CLAIMANTS AS PER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE ‘MODIFIED CLAIM TRIBUNAL
AGREED PROCEDURE’ (MCTAP).
31. This court is in receipt of the orders dated 07.12.2018
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in FAO no. 842/2003
titled as Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors whereby the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has formulated MACAD(Motor
Accident Claims Annuity Deposit Scheme) which has been made
effective from 01.01.2019. The said orders dated 07.12.2018
also mentions that 21 banks including State Bank of India is one
of such banks which are to adhere to MACAD. The State Bank
of India, Saket Courts, Delhi is directed to disburse the amount in
accordance with MACAD formulated by the Hon’ble High Court
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 33 of 37
of Delhi.
Apportionment:-
32. Another issue which is to be decided is out of such Award
amount, how much is to be released at present and how much is
to kept in the form of FDR for future financial used of the
petitioner.
33 At this stage, it is relevant to the refer to the judgment of
A. V. Padma & Ors. Vs., R. Venugopal & Ors. (2012) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 378:
“……In the case of Susamma Thomas (supra), this Court
issued certain guidelines in order to “safeguard the feed
from being frittered away by the beneficiaries due to
ignorance, illiteracy and susceptibility to exploitation”.
Even as per the guidelines issued by this Court Court, long
term fixed deposit of amount of compensation is mandatory
only in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows.
In the case of illiterate claimants, the Tribunal is allowed to
consider the request for lumpsum payment for effecting
purchase of any movable property such as agricultural
implements, rickshaws etc. to earn a living. However, in
such cases, the Tribunal shall make sure that the amount is
actually spent for the purpose and the demand is not a ruse
to withdraw money. In the case of semi-illiterate claimants,
the Tribunal should ordinarily invest the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit. But if the
Tribunal is satisfied for reasons to be stated in writing that
the whole or part of the amount is required for expanding
an existing business or for purchasing some property for
earning a livelihood, the Tribunal can release the whole or
part of the amount of compensation to the claimant
provided the Tribunal will ensure that the amount is
invested for the purpose for which it is demanded and paid.
In the case of literate persons, it is not mandatory to invest
the amount of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
The expression used in guideline No. (iv) issued by this
Court is that in the case of literate persons also the Tribunal
may resort to the procedure indicated in guideline No. (i),
whereas in the guideline Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v), the
expression used is that the Tribunal should. Moreover, in
the case of literate persons, the Tribunal may resort to the
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 34 of 37
procedure indicated in guideline No. (i) only if, having
regard to the age, fiscal background and strata of the
society to which the claimant belongs and such other
considerations, the Tribunal thinks that in the larger interest
of the claimant and with a view to ensure the safety of the
compensation awarded, it is necessary to invest the amount
of compensation in long term fixed deposit.
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal
not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in
long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole
amount in the case of literate persons. However, the
Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are
mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount
of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed
deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical
approach without understanding and appreciating the
distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors,
illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semi
literate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the
above guidelines were issued by this Court only to
safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the
minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to
be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds. The guidelines
were not to be understood to mean that the Tribunals were
to take a rigid stand while considering an application
seeking release of the money.
The guidelines cast a responsibility on the Tribunals to pass
appropriate orders after examining each case on its own
merits. However, it is seen that even in cases when there is
no possibility or chance of the feed being frittered away by
the beneficiary owing to ignorance, illiteracy or
susceptibility to exploitation, investment of the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit is directed by the
Tribunals as a matter of course and in a routine manner,
ignoring the object and the spirit of the guidelines issued by
this Court and the genuine requirements of the claimants.
Even in the case of literate persons, the Tribunals are
automatically ordering investment of the amount of
compensation in long term fixed deposit without recording
that having regard to the age or fiscal background or the
strata of the society to which the claimant belongs or such
other considerations, the Tribunal thinks it necessary to
direct such investment in the larger interests of the claimant
and with a view to ensure the safety of the compensation
awarded to him.
The Tribunals very often dispose of the claimant’s
application for withdrawal of the amount of compensation
in a mechanical manner and without proper application of
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 35 of 37
mind. This has resulted in serious injustice and hardship to
the claimants. The Tribunals appear to think that in view of
the guidelines issued by this Court, in every case the
amount of compensation should be invested in long term
fixed deposit and under no circumstances the Tribunal can
release the entire amount of compensation to the claimant
even if it is required by him. Hence a change of attitude and
approach on the part of the Tribunals is necessary in the
interest of justice…..”
34. In this background of legal position, it may be noted that in
present case, claimant suffered injury and incurred expenses
including on medical expenses, special diet, conveyance. Further,
in the considered view of this Tribunal, the purpose of such
Award is to compensate the petitioner for the financial loss
already sustained that is to reimburse the same, in the same
manner in which he would have otherwise earned.
35. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances
involved in the present case and the above-said guidelines laid
down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and Hon’ble Supreme
Court, Out of total settlement amount Rs.40,00,000/- along with
proportionate (to the principle amount) up to date interest is kept
in form of monthly FDR of Rs. 20,000/- each. Remaining
amount along with proportionate up to date interest shall be
released in his bank account near his place of residence.
FORM -VI-B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD.
1 Date of accident 04.02.2021
2 Name of injured Sanjay
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 36 of 37
3 Age of the injured 30 years
4 Occupation of the Not proved
injured
5 Income of the injured Rs. 15,492/- as per minimum
wages applicable in the State of
NCT of Delhi for an unskilled
workman at the time of accident.
6 Nature of injury Grievous + Disability.
7 Medical treatment As per record.
taken by the injured:
8 Period of As per record.
Hospitalization
9 Whether any Grievous + Disability.
permanent disability?
36. Copy of this award be given to the parties free of cost. The
copy of award be also sent to the Ld. Secretary, DLSA and Ld.
Concerned Criminal Court.
Digitally signed
by SHELLY
Announced in the open court SHELLY ARORA
on 11.03.2025 ARORA Date:
2025.03.11
16:27:33 +0530
(Shelly Arora)
PO (MACT)-02, SE/Saket
New Delhi
MACT No. 290/22 Sanjay Vs. Aditya Sareen & Anr. Page No. 37 of 37