Delhi District Court
Satish (I)(Fir420/19/Kotwali) vs Arvind (Iffco) on 3 May, 2025
DLCT010055832021
Presented on : 06-04-2021
Registered on : 12-04-2021
Decided on : 03-05-2025
Duration : 04 Years 01 Month
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF PRESIDING OFFICER-MACT-02,
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY DR. PANKAJ SHARMA
MACT NO. 472/21
SATISH @ MAHENDRA PAL
S/o Sh. Kishan Lal
R/o H. No. A-69A,
Block Beer Singh Colony,
Buddh Vihar, Phase-2,
Delhi.
Also at:-
97, Gaon Alahadpur,
Datavali, Aligarh, Atrauli,
Uttar Pradesh-202129. .......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. ARVIND
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal
R/o Mohalla Satyanagar,
Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. (Driver).
2. AMAN ARORA
S/o Sh. Shyam Arora
R/o H.No. 536- Arya Nagar,
Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh-283203.(Owner).
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 1/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.03
11:26:14 +0530
3: IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.
Regd. Office: IFFCO Sadan, C1, District Centre,
Saket, New Delhi-110017 (Insurer).
(Through Ld. Counsel Sh.S.K.Tyagi)
Form-XVII, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A) are as under:-
1. Date of the accident 12/12/2019
2. Date of filing of Form-I - First Accident Report N.A.
(FAR)
3. Date of delivery of Form-II to the victim(s) N.A.
4. Date of receipt of Form-III from the Driver N.A.
5. Date of receipt of Form-IV from the Owner N.A.
6. Date of filing of the Form-V-Interim Accident N.A.
Report (IAR)
7. Date of receipt of Form-VIA and Form-VIB N.A.
from the Victim(s)
8. Date of filing of Form-VII - Detailed Accident 12/04/2021
Report (DAR)
9. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/ direction warranted?
10. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N.A.
by the Insurance Company
11. Whether the Designated Officer of the Insurance N.A.
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR?
12. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N.A.
the part of the Designated officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any action/
direction warranted?
13. Date of response of the petitioner(s) to the offer N.A.
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 2/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:18 +0530
of the Insurance Company.
14. Date of the award 03/05/25
15. Whether the petitioner (s) was/were directed to Yes
open savings bank account(s) near their place of
residence?
16. Date of order by which claimant(s) was/were 23/10/24
directed to open savings bank account(s) near his
place of residence and produce PAN Card and
Adhaar Card and the direction to the bank not
issue any cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to this
effect on the passbook.
17. Date on which the claimant(s) produced the N.A.
passbook of their savings bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Adhaar Card?
18. Permanent Residential Address of the H. No. A-69A,
Claimant(s). Block Beer
Singh Colony,
Buddh Vihar,
Phase-2,
Delhi.
Also at:-
97, Gaon Alaha
dpur,
Datavali,
Aligarh,
Atrauli,
Uttar Pradesh-
202129.
19. Whether the claimant(s) savings bank account(s) NA
is near his place of residence?
20. Whether the claimant(s) was/were examined at NA
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 3/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:22 +0530
the time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition?
AWARD/JUDGMENT
FACTUAL POSITION & PLAINT/ PETITION
1. Perusal of records reveal that initially two separate
DARs were filed on 12/04/2021 by the Investigating Officer in
the presence of parties. One DAR bearing MACT No. 354/20
was prepared in respect of injuries sustained by one Sh.
Pradip Goswami S/o Sh. Debdas Goswami (hereinafter referred
to as 'injured') and the other DAR bearing MACT No. 472/21
was prepared in respect of injuries sustained by one Sh. Satish
@ Mahendra Pal S/o Sh. Kishan Pal (hereinafter referred to as
'injured') respectively. Both these matters bearing MACT No.
352/20 & 472/21 were consolidated vide order dated 01/11/2022
and the case bearing MACT No. 354/20 titled as 'Pradip
Goswami Vs Arvind & Ors was treated as 'Lead Case' and the
said lead case has already been disposed of by this Tribunal vide
judgment dated 19/02/2025. Today, the instant petition bearing
MACT No.472/21 titled as 'Satish Vs Arvind & Ors' is being
disposed off by this Tribunal. . As per injured Satish Kumar, he is
living in Delhi and plying auto on rent for last 15-20 years and on
dated 12/12/2019 at about 5.30 AM, near Rithala Metro Station
one passenger who told him that he is employed with CISF
Metro and hired his Auto from Rithala Metro Station to Anand
Vihar while he was going towards Geeta Colony loop from
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 4/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:25 +0530
Jamna Bazar via outer Ring Road by his Autho then an Eicher
Truck bearing registration no. UP-83BT-8876 (hereinafter
referred to as "offending vehicle") running in very rash and
negligent manner at very highs peed, over taken from the left
side in a wrongful manner and the driver of the offending Truck
could not control his vehicle due to that offending vehicle Truck
lost its balance and river of the offending Truck applied the brake
of the offending vehicle and all of sudden he tried to save his
vehicle in best of his capacity but his auto hit at right side back of
Truck resulting in ramming of his auto in to Truck. It is further
stated that thereafter he became unconscious due to injury and
when he regained consciousness, he was in hospital. It is further
stated that the offending Truck driver caused the accident by
driving it at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. It is
further stated that IO recorded his statement. It is further stated
that he was treated at the Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi and
MLC bearing No. 113644259 dated 12/12/2019 was prepared and
the injured was discharged from the hospital on the next date and
as per the MLC the injured has suffered simple injury. He
further claims that at the relevant time he was working as auto
driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month from the said
work and due to the injuries he could not do any work for two
months. It is further stated that he has spent about Rs. 10,000/- on
special diet, Rs. 5,000/- on conveyance and Rs.20,000/- on
treatment. An FIR no. 420/2019 PS Kotwali U/s 279/337 IPC
was registered, wherein it is stated that the accident took place on
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 5/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.03
11:26:29 +0530
account of rashness and negligence of driver of the offending
vehicle. R-1 is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle.
R-2 is stated to be the owner of the offending vehicle. R-3 is
stated to be the insurer of the offending vehicle. DAR was
treated as a claim petition. R-3/insurance company was directed
to file a legal offer/reasoned decision in response to the said
DAR. R-1 and R-2 were also directed to file their Written
Statements.
2. A joint written statement was filed by R-1 & R-2 in
which they declined the contents of the petition. However, they
further averred that at the relevant time the offending vehicle was
covered by an insurance policy issued by R-3/ insurance company
in favour of R-2 and therefore, the liability, if any, is to be
discharged by R-3/ Insurance Company only.
3. R-3/Insurance Company filed a reply wherein it
seeks to avoid liability on the ground that the offending vehicle
driven by its driver did not have a valid and effective driving
license. However, it is admitted that at the relevant time the
offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by
itself.
ISSUES IN BOTH THE CASES
4. Vide order dated 01/11/2022 the following
consolidated issues were framed by this Tribunal :-
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 6/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:32 +0530
1.Whether the petitioners Sh.
Pradeep Goswami and Sh.
Satish Kumar suffered injuries
in an accident that took place
on 12.12.2019 at about 06.10
AM involving vehicle bearing
registration No.
PUP-83BT-8876 driven by the
Respondent No. 1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the
respondent no. 2 and insured
with the respondent no. 3?
OPP
2.Whether the petitioners are
entitled for compensation? If
so, to what amount and from
whom?
3. Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. The petitioner filed affidavit Ex. PW1/A wherein he
described the occurrence of incident in line with the facts mentio
ned in Para 1 of this award.He deposed that he sustained grievous
injuries at the relevant time. He further deposed that at the relevant
time, he was auto driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month
and he sustained simple injuries in the abovesaid motor vehicula
r accident. Petitioner has relied upon the following documents
viz:-
“Ex PW1/1 is copy of proof of resident of the
PW-1;
Ex.PW-1/2 is copy of DAR”
5.1 He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondents.
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 7/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:36 +0530
In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he is a
auto driver by profession and he is driving auto since 1990. He
denied the suggestion that on the day of accident the alleged offe
nding vehicle did overtake him from the left side. He further
denied the suggestion that at the accident he was driving his
vehicle in zigzig-zag manner and banged into the alleged
offending vehicle from the behind.
5.2 PE was then closed.
6. Respondents No. 1 & 2 led evidence in the lead case
bearing MACT No. 374/20 titled as Pradip Goswami Vs Arvind
& Ors which is as follows:-
6.1 R-1 examined himself as R1W1 in his defence. He
deposed vide his affidavit Ex.R1W1/A. He was cross-examined
by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In his cross-exami
nation he deposed that he is facing trial in case FIR No. 420/219
u/s 279/337/338 IPC and 3/181 of MV Act.
6.2 R-2 examined one Sh. Ankush Arora as R2W1 in his
defence. He deposed vide his affidavit Ex.R2W1-/A. He was
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. In
his cross-examination he deposed that Mr. Aman Arora his
younger brother and registered owner of vehicle bearing
registration no. UP-83-BT-8876. And he is facing trial in case
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 8/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:39 +0530
FIR No. 420/219 u/s 279/337/338 IPC and 3/181 of MV Act.
6.3 R-2 examined himself as R2W2 in his defence. He
deposed vide his affidavit Ex. R2W2/A. He was cross-examine
d by Ld. Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company as well as by Ld.
Counsel for petitioner. In his cross-examination he deposed his
vehicle bearing registration no. UP-83BT-8876 was insured
with IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company. He further depo
sed that his vehicle was released from the criminal record on su
perdari.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
7. Oral submissions were advanced by Ld. Counsel for
parties.
8. I have perused the record and my issue wise
findings is as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
‘Whether the petitioners Sh. Pradeep
Goswami and Sh. Satish Kumar
suffered injuries in an accident that took
place on 12.12.2019 at about 06.10 AM
involving vehicle bearing registration
No. PUP-83BT-8876 driven by the
Respondent No. 1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the respondent
no. 2 and insured with the respondent
no. 3? OPP ”
9. It is well settled that the procedure followed for
proceedings conducted by an accident tribunal is similar to that
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 9/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:41 +0530
followed by a civil court and in civil matters the facts are
required to be established by preponderance of probabilities
only and not by strict rules of evidence or beyond reasonable
doubts as are required in a criminal prosecution. The burden of
proof in a civil case is never as heavy as that is required in a
criminal case, but in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles
Act, this burden is infact even lesser than that in a civil case.
Reference in this regard can be made to the propositions of law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla
Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and
others, reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, which were reiterated in
the subsequent judgment in the case of Parmeshwari Vs. Amir
Chand and others 2011 (1) SCR 1096 (Civil Appeal No.1082 of
2011) and also recently in another case Mangla Ram Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2018 Law Suit (SC) 303.
10. In order to prove the present issue, the petitioner in
both the petitions have examined themselves as PW-1. The
injured person has clearly and categorically deposed that on
dated 12/12/2019 at about 5.30 AM, near Rithala Metro Station
one passenger who told him that he is employed with CISF
Metro and hired his Auto from Rithala Metro Station to Anand
Vihar while he was going towards Geeta Colony loop from
Jamna Bazar via outer Ring Road by his Autho then an Eicher
Truck bearing registration no. UP-83BT-8876 (hereinafter
referred to as “offending vehicle”) running in very rash and
negligent manner at very highs peed, over taken from the left
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 10/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:46 +0530
side in a wrongful manner and the driver of the offending Truck
could not control his vehicle due to that offending vehicle Truck
lost its balance and river of the offending Truck applied the
brake of the offending vehicle and all of sudden he tried to save
his vehicle in best of his capacity but his auto hit at right side
back of Truck resulting in ramming of his auto in to Truck. It is
further stated that thereafter he became unconscious due to
injury and when he regained consciousness, he was in hospital.
It is further stated that the offending Truck driver caused the
accident by driving it at very high speed in a rash and negligent
manner. It is further stated that IO recorded his statement. It is
further stated that he was treated at the Lok Nayak Hospital,
New Delhi and MLC bearing No. 113644259 dated 12/12/2019
was prepared and the injured was discharged from the hospital
on the next date and as per the MLC the injured has suffered
simple injury. He further claims that at the relevant time he was
working as auto driver and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month
from the said work and due to the injuries he could not do any
work for two months. It is further stated that he has spent about
Rs. 10,000/- on special diet, Rs. 5,000/- on conveyance and
Rs.20,000/- on treatment. He was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company. The oral testimony of
PW-1 has gone unrebutted qua R-1 and R-2. PW-1 seems to
have withstood the test of cross examination. There is no
material on record, which suggests any falsity or untruth in the
oral testimonies of PW-1 as to the facts and circumstances
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 11/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:49 +0530
surrounding the occurrence of the accident. PW-1 withstood the
test of cross examination and did not betray any signs of falsity
or untruth. He declined the suggestions imputing the occurrence
of accident to his own negligence.
11. The very fact that R-1 has already been charge-
sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338
IPC & 3/181 & 5/180 of MV Act in the above criminal case/FIR
in itself is a strong circumstance to support the above oral
testimony of injured persons on these issues. The certified copies
of FIR, Chargeshee MLC, Mechanical Inspection Report and Site
Plan also corroborate the oral testimonies of both the injured
persons.
12. In view of the above, it could be safely assumed that
at the relevant time the motorcycle, which the deceased were
riding was hit in the rear by the offending vehicle.
13. Having ruled so, this Tribunal now proceeds to
assess the wrongful act, neglect or default of R-1, if any, in
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. Admittedly,
R-1 has not explained the circumstances under which his vehicle
(i.e. the offending vehicle) hit the Three Wheeler in which the
injured persons were riding, in the rear at the relevant time. In
the absence of any averment or evidence regarding any
mechanical defect in the offending vehicle or any material
depicting any negligent/sudden act or omission on the part of
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 12/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.03
11:26:52 +0530
the petitioner, the only inference possible in the given facts and
circumstances is that of neglect and default on the part of R-1 in
driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time. In view of the
above discussion, this Tribunal is constrained to hold R-1 guilty
of gross negligence and default in driving the offending vehicle
at the relevant time.
14. In view of the medical records placed on the
judicial files by the respective petitioners, no dispute is left
regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the injured persons
in the above accident.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal holds
that the injured person suffered simple injuries on account of
neglect and default of R-1 while driving the offending vehicle at
the relevant time. Both these issues are thus decided against the
respondents and in favour of the petitioner in the present case.
ISSUE NO. 2
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
16. As the issue no.1 has been proved in affirmative and
in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner has become entitled to
be compensated for the injuries suffered in the above accident,
but the computation of compensation and liability to pay the
same are required to be decided.
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 13/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:55 +0530
17. In terms of provisions contained in Section 168 of
the MV Act the compensation which is to be awarded by this
tribunal is required to be ‘just’. In the injury cases a claimant is
entitled to two different kinds of compensations i.e. Pecuniary as
well as non-pecuniary damages. The “pecuniary damages” or
special damages are those damages which are awarded and
designed to make good the losses which are capable of being
calculated in terms of money and the object of awarding these
damages is to indemnify the claimant for the expenses which he
had already incurred or is likely to incur in respect of the injuries
suffered by him in the accident. The “non-pecuniary” or general
damages are those damages which are incapable of being
assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special
damages generally include the expenses incurred by the claimant
towards his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/
attendant, loss of income/earning capacity etc. and the non-
pecuniary damages generally include the compensation for the
mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities
of life, marriage prospects and disfiguration etc. The above
categories falling under both the heads of compensation are not
exhaustive in nature but only illustrative. It is also necessary to
state here that no amount of money or compensation can put the
injured/claimant exactly in the same position or place where he
was before the accident and an effort is to be made only to
reasonably compensate him or to put him almost in the same
place or position where he could have been if the alleged
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 14/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:26:59 +0530
accident had not taken place and this compensation is to be
assessed in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The object
of compensating him is also not to reward him or to make him
rich in an unjust manner. It is also well settled that the ‘just’
compensation to be awarded to the claimant has to be calculated
objectively and it may involve some guess work in calculating
the different amounts which the claimant may be entitled under
the different heads of compensation. Further, in case of
permanent disability, the assessment of compensation under the
head of loss of future earning, would depend upon the effect and
impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.
Reference in this regard can be made on some of important
judgments on the subject like the judgment in the case of R.D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755,
Arvind Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Company
Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 254 and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar &
Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343.
18. In light of the above legal propositions, the amount
of compensation which can be considered to be ‘just’ in the
opinion of this tribunal shall be as under:-
(i) Medical or Treatment Expenses
19. No bill regarding treatment has been filed by
injured. It is common knowledge that generally people during
the treatment do not maintain the bills etc as they are not aware
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 15/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:03 +0530
of this benevolent legislation having provisions for
compensation. Keeping in view the overall circumstances,
I hereby grant a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses.
(ii) Pain and Suffering
20. As per medical documents, the injured Satish Kumar
has suffered simple injuries. 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.25,000/- 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. 25,000/-
under this head.
(iii) Loss of actual earnings
21. In his affidavit Ex. PW1/A, the petitioner claims
that he was 48 years old and was an auto driver and was earning
Rs.25,000/- from the said vocation at the relevant time. The
medical documents reflect that the petitioner sustained simple
injuries. The above documents are sufficient to uphold the claim
of the petitioner to the effect that 1he was unable to resume her
work for about 01 month due to the injuries. In the absence of
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 16/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.03
11:27:06
+0530
any material as to the monthly earnings of the petitioner, it
would be appropriate to assume the monthly earnings of the
petitioner as per the Minimum Wages payable to an Skilled
Person in Delhi as on the date of accident. As per relevant
notification, the Minimum Wages admissible to an Skilled
Person as on 12/12/2019 in Delhi were Rs.17,991/-. As such, the
petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs.17,991/- (Rs. 17,991 X
1). The said sum is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
(v) Conveyance, Attendant Charges, Special Diet & Am entities
of life
22. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the extent of permanent visual disability and the
extended period of medical treatment, the petitioner is granted a
sum of Rs. 5,000/- each under these heads.
Issue No.3/Relief
23. The petitioner is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.64,991/-
(Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety One
Only) (Rs. 2,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- +
Rs.5,000/- + Rs. 5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) along with interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of restoration of the DAR i.e.
12/04/2021. Since no interim compensation has been awarded,
therefore no deduction is applicable.
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 17/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.03
11:27:10
+0530
RELEASE
24. Petitioner did not bother to appear before this
Tribunal for recording his statement regarding financial needs
and requirements.
25. The entire awarded amount of Rs.88,875/- ( Rupees
Eighty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Five Only)
be released in his savings/MACT Claims SB Account as and
when he furnishes the details of his bank account which is near
the place of his residence to the Bank Manager, State Bank of
India, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi under intimation to the
Civil Nazir of this Tribunal which can be withdrawn and utilized
by the Petitioner.
26. The Bank(s) shall not permit any joint name(s) to be
added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit accounts of
the petitioner(s) i.e. the savings bank account(s) of the
petitioner(s) shall be an individual savings bank account(s) and
not a joint account(s). The original fixed deposit shall be
retained by the SBI, Branch Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in safe
custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR
amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished
by the bank to the petitioner(s). The maturity amounts of the
FDR(s) be credit by Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the
savings bank account of the petitioner(s) near the place of their
residence. No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 18/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:14 +0530
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without permission
of this Tribunal.
LIABILITY
27. The plea raised on behalf of R-3/ Insurance
Company that it is a case of cotributory negligence as the auto
which the petitioner was driving could not observe a safe
distance from the offending vehicle which was moving ahead
resulting into this accident, the said plea of the R-3/ Insurance
Company can be discounted as there is no evidence to show that
the auto which the petitioner was driving was not maintaining a
safe distance from the the offending vehilce.
27.1 On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for R-3/
Insurance Company has submitted that R-1 & R-2 were served
with a notice issued under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC to produce his
driving licence, but the same was never produced before it(R-3)
or before this Tribunal. He further submitted that R-1 was
charge-sheeted inter alia U/s 3/181 & 5/180 of M.V. Act. Ld.
Counsel for R-3/ Insurance Company further submitted in
support of above claim regarding dispatch of notice U/o 12 Rule
8 CPC to R-1 & R-2. It is accordingly argued by Ld. Counsel for
R-3/ Insurance Company that since R-1 was plying the offending
vehicle without any valid driving licence, it (R-3) is liable to be
discharged. It has been noted by this Tribunal that R-1 & R-2
have failed to place any valid and effective driving licence of R-1
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 19/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:17 +0530
on record. It is not disputed that R-1 was charge-sheeted inter alia
U/s 3/181 & 5/180 of M.V. Act. Accordingly, it could be safely
assumed that R-1 was driving the offending vehicle without any
valid driving licence. This entitles R-3 to be granted recovery
rights against R-1 and R-2 jointly ans severally. Ordered
accordingly.
28. R-3/ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
above award amount within 30 days from the date of this Award
by way of NEFT or RTGS mode in the account of this Tribunal
maintained with SBI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (account holder’s
name-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 02 Central, A/C No.
40743576901, IFSC Code SBIN0000726 under intimation to the
petitioner and this Tribunal in terms of the format for remittance
of compensation as provided in Divisional Manager Vs. Rajesh,
2016 SCC Online Mad. 1913 (and reiterated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the orders dated 16.03.2021 and 16.11.2021
titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union
of India & Ors) along with interest @ 9% per annum, failing
which it will be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per
annum for the period of delay.
29. 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
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 20/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.03
11:27:20 +0530
(fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40
of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under
Rule 150A)]. Further 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).
30. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy
of the award to the insurer as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 524/2020 titled as Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India &
Ors. on 16.03.2021. Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated
copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts
for information.
31. 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.
A separate file be prepared for compliance report and put
up the same on 03.06.2025. PANKAJ
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.05.03
11:27:24
Announced in the open court (DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)+0530
on this 03.05.2025 PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 21/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:27 +0530
FORM – XVI, Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 (Pl. see Rule 150A)
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE
1. Date of accident : 12/12/2019
2. Name of the injured : Satish @ Mahendra
Pal
3. Age of the injured : 48 years
4. Occupation of the injured : Auto driver
5. Income of the injured : As per minimum
waves of a Skilled
Person prevailing in
Delhi at the relevant
time
6. Nature of injury : Simple
7. Medical treatment taken
by injured : Govt Hospital
8. Period of Hospitalization : NA
9. Whether any permanent
disability ? If yes, give details : No
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 22/26
Digitally signed
by PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.03
11:27:31 +0530
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(I) Expenditure on treatment Rs.2,000/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.5,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb NIL
(vi) Loss of earning capacity NIL
(vii) Loss of Income Rs.17,991/-
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 23/26
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:37 +0530
(viii) Any other loss which may NIL
require any special
treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his
life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental NIL
and physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration NIL
(v) Loss of marriage prospects NIL
(vi) Loss of earning, N.A.
inconvenience, hardships,
disappointment, frustration,
mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future
life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 24/26
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:40 +0530
(i) Percentage of disability NIL
assessed and nature of
disability as permanent or
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N.A
expectation of life span on
account of disabilityNIL
(iii) Percentage of loss of
earning capacity in relation
to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – NIL
(Income x % Earning
Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.64,991/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED 9% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the Rs.23,884/-
date of award
17. Total amount including Rs.88,875/-
interest
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 25/26
Digitally signed by
PANKAJ PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:44 +0530
18. Award amount released Entire
19. Award amount kept in NIL
FDRs
20. Mode of disbursement of Mentioned in the award
the award amount to the
claimant(s).
21. Next date for compliance of 03.06.2025
the award.
CONCLUSION:-
1. As per award dated 03.05.2025.
2. A separate file is ordered to be prepared by the Nazir with
directions to put up the same on 03.06.2025.
Digitally signed
PANKAJ by PANKAJ
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03
11:27:48 +0530
(DR. PANKAJ SHARMA)
PO MACT-02 (CENTRAL)
DELHI/03/05/2025
MACT No. 472/21 Satish @ Mahendra Pal Vs Arvind & Ors. Page No. 26/26
Digitally
signed by
PANKAJ
PANKAJ SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.05.03
11:27:52
+0530
[ad_1]
Source link