Delhi District Court
Savti Alias Shivvati vs Sahabuddin And Ors on 5 June, 2025
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA MANCHANDA,
PRESIDING OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MAC Petition No. 6502/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-007288-2016
Sh. Rohit Kumar,
S/o Sh. Shoraj Singh,
R/o. H.No. 144,
Bakhtawarpur,
Delhi.
(Injured)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sahabuddin,
S/o Sh. Abdul Ajij,
R/o C-30,
Abhimanyu Gali,
Arjun Nagar, Uttari Ghonda,
Maujpur, Seelampur,
Delhi.
(Driver)
2. Vardhman Paper Syndicate,
Through proprietor Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
(since expired through his LRs)
(i) Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
(ii)Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal,
W/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 1 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
(iii)Ms. Radha Gupta,
D/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
All R/o 20, Radhey Shyam Park,
Parwana Road,
Delhi.
3. Sh. Sanjay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kallu Prasad,
R/o Ram Krishna Enclave,
Mangal Bazar,
Khoda Colony,
Ghaziabad.
(Possessory Owner)
........Respondents
AND
MAC Petition No. 6503/16
UID/CNR No. DLNT01-007286-2016
Smt. Savti,
W/o Sh. Shoraj Singh,
R/o. H.No. 144,
Bakhtawarpur,
Delhi.
(Injured)
.......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sahabuddin,
S/o Sh. Abdul Ajij,
R/o C-30,
Abhimanyu Gali,
Arjun Nagar, Uttari Ghonda,
Maujpur, Seelampur,
Delhi.
(Driver)
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 2 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
2. Vardhman Paper Syndicate,
Through proprietor Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
(since expired through his LRs)
(i) Sh. Himanshu Aggarwal,
S/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
(ii)Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal,
W/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
(iii)Ms. Radha Gupta,
D/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
All R/o 20, Radhey Shyam Park,
Parwana Road,
Delhi.
3. Sh. Sanjay Kumar,
S/o Sh. Kallu Prasad,
R/o Ram Krishna Enclave,
Mangal Bazar,
Khoda Colony,
Ghaziabad.
(Possessory Owner)
........Respondents
Date of Institution : 08.06.2016
Date of Decision : 05.06.2025
APPEARENCES
Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner(s) in both the cases.
None for driver (defence struck off vide order dated 29.08.2017).
Ms. Sarika Goel, Ld. Counsel for LRs of deceased Proprietor of
registered owner/respondent no. 2.
Sh. Yashwant Singh and Ms. Reema Batra, Ld. Counsels for
respondent no. 3.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 3 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988
for grant of compensation
AWARD:
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the claim
petitions with regard to injury suffered by Rohit Kumar (injured in MACP
No. 6502/16) and Savti (injured in MACP No. 6503/16) in a Motor
Vehicular Accident which occurred on 17.04.2010 at about 9:00 AM, Near
Sharma Petrol Pump, PS. Pilakhuwa, Ghaziabad, involving offending
vehicle i.e., Tata Indica Car bearing registration no. DL33C-AF-8875
(offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its
driver(respondent no.1).
2. Both these claim petitions were consolidated for the purpose of
recording of evidence vide order dated 19.09.2018, passed by Ld.
Predecessor and MACP No. 6502/16 titled as " Rohit Kumar Vs. Sahabuddin
& Ors" was treated as the leading case. Accordingly, the evidence was led in
the leading case for the purpose of these matters.
FACTS OF THE CASES
3. As per both the claim petitions, on 17.04.2010, petitioner
Rohit(injured herein) alongwith his mother namely Smt. Savti(injured herein)
were going from Bakhtawarpur, Delhi to his native village Salarpur on
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-AN-9272. At about 9:00 am, when
they reached near Sharma Petrol Pump, PS. Pilakhuwa, Ghaziabad, one Tata
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 4 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
Indica Car bearing registration no. DL3C-AF-8875 which was being driven
by its driver/respondent no. 1 at a very high speed in a rash and negligent
manner, came from wrong side and hit against the aforesaid motorcycle, as a
result of which, both the riders of the motorcycle fell down on the road and
sustained injuries in the said accident. They both were immediately taken to
Saraswati Medical College, Anwarpur and thereafter, referred to Sushruta
Trauma Centre, Delhi. FIR No. 135/10 u/s. 279/338 IPC was registered at PS.
Pilakhuwa, District Ghaziabad, UP with regard to the said accident. The
offending vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 and was possessed by
respondent no. 3 during the period in question.
4. The respondent no. 1 i.e., driver of offending vehicle has failed
to file his WS despite grant of sufficient time and opportunity. Consequently,
his defence was struck off vide order dated 29.08.2017.
5. In its identical but separate Written Statements filed in both the
cases, the respondent no. 2 i.e., registered owner has raised preliminary
objections that prior to his death, proprietor of respondent no. 2 namely
Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal had sold the offending vehicle to one Sh. Sanjay
Gupta and had delivered the offending vehicle to him vide delivery receipt
dated 30.05.2008 in the presence of one witness Sh. Vikas Mittal. It is
claimed that Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal did not know the respondent no. 1
Sh. Sahabuddin. It is further claimed that Late Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal
was not the owner of the offending car at the time of accident. It is also
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 5 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
claimed that respondent no. 1 was not in the service of the respondent no. 2
and thus, not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Also,
respondent no. 2 has denied the averments made in the claim petition and
prayed for its dismissal.
6. In its identical but separate Written Statements filed in both the
cases, the respondent no. 3 has raised preliminary objections that present
petition is bad for want of mis-joinder of parties and the same is liable to be
dismissed. He further claimed that neither he was the registered owner nor in
possession of offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. He further
claimed that on the day of alleged accident dated 17.04.2010, the offending
vehicle was registered in the name of Vardhman Paper Syndicate, a
Proprietorship concern. On merits, he has denied the averments made in the
claim petition and prayed for its dismissal.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed in both the claim petitions separately by Ld. Predecessor vide order
dated 17.03.2018:-
1) Whether the injured Rohit Kumar suffered
injuries in road traffic accident on 17.04.2010 at
about 9:00 am, near Sharma Petrol Pump, within the
jurisdiction of PS. Pilakhuwa, Ghaziabad, ,UP, due
to rashness and negligence on the part of respondent
no. 1 Sh. Sahabuddin in driving the vehicle i.e., Tata
Indica Car bearing registration no. DL3C-AF-8875,
owned by respondent no. 2 and was possessed by
respondent no. 3? OPP.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 6 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed in both the claim petitions separately by Ld. Predecessor vide order
dated 17.03.2018:-
1) Whether the injured Savti @ Shivvati suffered
injuries in road traffic accident on 17.04.2010 at
about 9:00 am, near Sharma Petrol Pump, within the
jurisdiction of PS. Pilakhuwa, Ghaziabad, ,UP, due
to rashness and negligence on the part of respondent
no. 1 Sh. Sahabuddin in driving the vehicle i.e., Tata
Indica Car bearing registration no. DL3C-AF-8875,
owned by respondent no. 2 and was possessed by
respondent no. 3? OPP.
2) Whether the injured is entitled to any
compensation if so to what amount and from whom?
OPP.
3) Relief.
9. In order to establish their claim, the petitioners have examined
five witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Rohit (injured), PW2 Smt. Savti (injured), PW3
Sh. Anil Kumar, Record Clerk, Sushruta Trauma Centre, PW4 Dr. Ankit
Aggarwal, Junior Resident, Saraswati Institute of Medical Science, Hapur
and PW5 Sh. Anil Kumar, Record Clerk, Sushruta Trauma Centre and their
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 7 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
evidence was closed vide order dated 30.11.2021. On the other hand, no
evidence was adduced by respondents no. 1 & 2. However, the respondent
no. 3 has examined one witness i.e., himself as R3W1 and his evidence was
closed vide order dated 23.05.2023.
10. This Tribunal has carefully perused DAR and claim petition and
evidence led by parties has been duly appreciated. All documents and
material relied upon & proved considered. Arguments addressed by
respective counsels considered. Legal position, both statutory and binding
applicable precedents, has been appreciated. The issue wise determination is
as under:-
ISSUE NO. 1 ( IN BOTH THE CASES)
11. The onus to prove, the said issue was placed on the
petitioner(s)/injured persons. To prove the said issue, petitioner(s) examined
PW1 Sh. Rohit Kumar (injured himself) and PW2 Smt. Savti (injured herself)
by tendering affidavits in evidence Ex. PW1/A & PW2/A respectively. In
their respective evidence, both the aforementioned two witnesses have
deposed on the lines of averments made in the claim petition(s).
12. PW1 Sh.Rohit Kumar has relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Description of documents Remarks
1. Certified copy of his MLC Ex PW1/1
2. Original medical treatment Ex. PW1/2(colly)
record
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 8 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
3. Disability Certificate Ex. PW1/3
4. Certified copy of FIR No. Ex. PW1/4
135/10
5. Certified copy of chargesheet Ex. PW1/5(colly)
alongwith site plan
6. Copy of his Aadhaar Card Ex. PW1/6(OSR)
7. Certified copy of order dated Ex. PW1/7
12.12.2015
8. His photograph Ex. PW1/8
13. PW1 (injured himself) in his testimony by way of affidavit
(Ex. PW1/A) has deposed that on 17.04.2010, he alongwith his mother
namely Smt. Savti were going from Bakhtawarpur, Delhi to his native village
Salarpur on motorcycle bearing registration no. DL8S-AN-9272. He further
deposed that at about 9:00 am, when they reached near Sharma Petrol Pump,
PS. Pilakhuwa, Ghaziabad, one Tata Indica Car bearing registration no.
DL3C-AF-8875 which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 at a
very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from wrong side and
hit against their aforesaid motorcycle, as a result of which, they both fell
down on the road and sustained injuries. He further deposed that they both
were immediately taken to Saraswati Medical College, Anwarpur and
thereafter, referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi. He further deposed that
FIR No. 135/10 u/s. 279/338 IPC was registered at PS. Pilakhuwa, District
Ghaziabad, UP with regard to the said accident. He categorically deposed that
the accident in question had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by its driver/R1.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 9 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
14. PW1/Injured was cross-examined on behalf of respondent no. 2
during which he denied the suggestion that he was not holding any driving
licence at the time of accident. He deposed that he could not say whether his
DL was filed on record or not. He further deposed that he did not make a
PCR call to the police after the accident. He further deposed that he as well as
his mother was fully conscious after the accident. He deposed that he was
removed to Sararswati Institute/Hospital situated at Pilakhuwa after the
accident by one Anil who was working at the petrol pump situated near the
place of accident. He further deposed that his MLC was prepared in the said
hospital on the information provided by him to the concerned doctor. He
further deposed that police had not arrived at the spot till he remained there.
He further deposed that police did not arrive at the hospital. He further
deposed that his statement was never recorded by the police. He deposed that
he was never taken to the spot of accident by the police. He denied the
suggestion that no injury was caused to him in the accident with the
involvement of vehicle no. DL3C-AF-8875. He further denied the suggestion
that the aforesaid vehicle has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
deposed that he could not see the face of the driver of the offending vehicle
as he had run away from the spot after causing the accident. He further
deposed that he himself noted down the registration number of the offending
vehicle after the accident as he was carrying pen and paper with him at that
time. He further denied the suggestion that he did not note down the number
of offending vehicle himself. During his cross-examination on behalf of
respondent no. 3, he deposed that he was having driving licence on the day of
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 10 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
accident. He admitted that he had not filed the copy of driving licence on the
record. He denied the suggestion that he was not having the valid driving
licence on the relevant date of accident, therefore, he had not placed on
record the copy of the same. He denied the suggestion that the alleged
accident was not occurred with the offending vehicle and due to the said
reason, there was no damage to the said offending vehicle. He further denied
the suggestion that the respondent no. 3 was neither having the control,
administration and possession of offending vehicle at the time of alleged
accident. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his
negligence.
15. PW2 (injured himself) in her testimony by way of affidavit
(PW2/A) has deposed on the identical lines of PW1 as deposed by him in his
examination by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A. During her cross-examination
on behalf of respondent no. 2, she denied the suggestion that she had not
suffered any injury in the accident in question. During her cross-examination
on behalf of respondent no. 3, she denied the suggestion that on the date of
accident, she was not travelling with her son on his motorcycle. She further
denied the suggestion that she did not meet with any accident.
16. It is evident from the testimonies of PW1 & PW2 that the
respondents could not impeach their testimonies through litmus test of cross-
examination and said witnesses are found to have successfully withstood the
test of cross-examination. Even otherwise, PW1 & PW2 themselves are the
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 11 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
injured having sustained injuries due to the accident in question. There is no
reason as to why they would depose falsely against respondent no.1.
Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No. 252/10 u/s 279/338/427
IPC was registered at PS. Pilakhuwa with regard to accident in question.
Copy of said FIR (Ex. PW1/5), would show that same was registered on
11.05.2010 on the statement of complainant Sh. Manmohan (brother of
PW1). Moreover, the respondents no. 1 & 2 have not led any evidence to
rebut the testimonies of aforesaid witnesses on the aspect of accident in
question being caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Indica Car
bearing registration no. DL3C-AF-8875. Thus, there is no reason to
disbelieve the uncontroverted testimonies of aforesaid witnesses made on
oath. It is relevant to mention here that petitioners did not have any kind of ill
will or enmity against the respondent no. 1 so as to falsely implicate him in
criminal case or to depose falsely against respondents during the course of
inquiry.
17. The facts of the case, arguments of the Ld. Counsels, evidence,
material on record and duly verified documents of the criminal case, have
been carefully examined and scrutinized. Respondent no. 1 namely
Sahabuddin has been charge sheeted for offences punishable U/s.
279/338/427 IPC by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion
on the basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in question has
taken place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 12 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
18. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.1/driver of
offending vehicle was the other material witness to throw light by testifying
as to how and under what circumstances, the accident has taken place.
However, he has preferred not to enter into the witness box. Thus, an adverse
inference is liable to be drawn against him to the effect that the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by the respondent no. 1. There is nothing on record to show that the
petitioner had any enmity with the driver of the offending vehicle so as to
falsely implicate him in this case. Reliance placed on Cholamandalam MS
General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kamlesh & Ors, MAC APP. No. 530/2008
passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 11.11.2008.
19. Apart from above, copies of MLCs of both the injured prepared
at Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi shows that they both had been removed to
said hospital on 17.04.2010 with alleged history of RTA. On their local
examination, they were found to have sustained multiple injuries as
mentioned therein. The said injuries are consistent with the injuries which are
sustained in motor vehicular accident. Again, there is no challenge to the
said document from the side of respondents. It is relevant to mention here
that although, the nature of injuries on the MLCs of both the injured persons
had not mentioned but it does not mean that they had suffered simple injuries
in the accident in question. It may be noted here that as per the MLCs of both
the injured persons they have suffered fracture in the accident and thus, it can
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 13 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
be safely presumed that both the injured persons had suffered grievous
injuries in the accident in question.
20. There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of
respondents that testimony of PW1 & PW2 are liable to be discarded on the
ground that FIR in the present case was registered on 17.04.2010 i.e., after
about 24 days of the accident. No doubt, accident occurred on 17.04.2010
and FIR in the present case, was registered on 11.05.2010 i.e. after about 24
days of the date of accident. However, the complainant has furnished
explanation for delay in lodging the FIR that the same could not be lodged on
the date of accident itself as he got busy in the treatment of both the
petitioners and after about 24 days i.e. on 11.05.2010, he got the FIR
registered at PS. Pilakhuwa with regard to the accident in question. MLC of
both the petitioners of Saraswathi Institute of Medical Science Ex. PW4/A &
Ex. PW4/B and Sushruta Trauma Centre Ex. PW5/A & Ex. PW3/A shows
that they had reported to the hospital on the same day for the treatment of
injuries suffered in the accident and were discharged after considerable
period.
21. It is relevant to note that none of the respondents have put any
question during cross-examination of PW1 & PW2 regarding the explanation
for delay in registration of FIR. Rather, suggestion had been put to him on
behalf of respondents that accident had taken place due to the negligence of
petitioner Rohit Kumar, which was of course denied by them.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 14 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
22. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances where the cogent
explanation has been furnished about the delay in the registration of FIR in
criminal case, same can not be considered to be fatal for the case of claimant
in present proceedings. Even otherwise, it is well settled law that delay in
lodging FIR can not be a ground to throw away the case of claimant in such
like proceedings in the backdrop of the conditions prevailing in our society
where one can not expect common man to rush to police station for
registration of FIR immediately after the accident. While saying so, I am
fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter titled as “Ravi
Vs. Badri Narayan & Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 1926/2011, decided on
18.02.2011. Hence, I am of the view that the delay of about 24 days in
registration of FIR in this case has been sufficiently explained and the
petitioner can not be denied just and fair compensation on this ground.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence which has
come on record, it is held that the petitioner(s) have been able to prove on the
basis of preponderence of probabilities that injured Rohit Kumar and Savti
had sustained grievous injuries in the road accident which took place on
17.04.2010 at about 9:00 AM, Near Sharma Petrol Pump, PS. Pilakhuwa,
Ghaziabad, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of
offending vehicle. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of petitioners and
against the respondents in both these claim petitions.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 15 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
ISSUE NO.2
24. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 enjoins upon the
Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and
reasonable.
25. The intent and objective of the Beneficial Legislation is to grant
equitable compensation to the vulnerable victims of road accidents and
dynamic law has evolved towards grant of just and fair quantum of awards
and has brought consistency and uniformity towards the desired goal. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009)
6 SCC 121, which was affirmed by a bench of three Hon’ble Judges in
Reshma Kumari & Ors. Vs. Madan Mohan & Anr., (2013) 9 SCC 65, held
as under:
“16. “Just compensation” is adequate compensation which is
fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case,
to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far
as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles
relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a
bonanza, largesse or source of profit.
17. Assessment of compensation though involving certain
hypothetical considerations, should nevertheless be
objective. Justice and justness emanate from equality in
treatment, consistency and thoroughness in adjudication, and
fairness and uniformity in the decision making process and
the decisions. While it may not be possible to have
mathematical precision or identical awards, in assessing
compensation, same or similar facts should lead to awards in
the same range. When the factors/inputs are the same, andRohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 16 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025the formula/legal principles are the same, consistency and
uniformity, and not divergence and freakiness, should be the
result of adjudication to arrive at just compensation…”
26. These guiding principles for assessment of “just and reasonable
compensation” have been torch bearer in injury cases also as laid down by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in III (2007), ACC 676 titled as Oriental
Insurance Co,. Ltd., Vs. Vijay Kumar Mittal & Ors, wherein it has been
held:-
“10. The possession of one’s own body is the first and most
valuable all human rights and while awarding compensation
for bodily injuries this primary element is to be kept in mind.
Bodily injury is to be treated and varies on account of
gravity of bodily injury. Though it is impossible to equate
money with human suffering, agony and personal
deprivation, the Court and Tribunal should make an honest
and serious attempt to award damages so far as money can
compensate the loss. Regard must be given to the gravity
and degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness
of the deprivation. Damages awarded in personal injury
cases must be substantial and not token damages…..”
11. The general principle which should govern the
assessment of damages in persons injury cases is that the
Court should award to injured persons such a sum as will
put him in the same position as he would have been in the
same position as he would have been in if he had not
sustained injuries”.
27. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in further development of the legal
position for grant of reasonable and fair compensation, has pronounced
guiding parameters that “the compensation should be just and is not expected
to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be niggardly or a pittance”.
Reliance is placed on 2012 (8) SLT 676 titled K. Suresh Vs. New India
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 17 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
Assurance Co. Ltd. The golden principles for assessment of adequate
compensation to victims of road accident have been appreciated by the full
bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2017 (13) SCALE 12 : 2017 XI AD (SC)
113 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors., wherein it
has been held:-
“…..The Tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that
the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in
proximity to reality. It is a well expected norm that money
can not substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for
grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach.
There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is,
a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum…..”
28. Accordingly, the entitlement of petitioner(s) to just
compensation is being assessed in the background of well settled parameters
and guidelines as discussed herein-above. The extent and nature of injuries,
medical expenses, period of treatment and nature of employment of each of
the injured, if any, has distinct facts and therefore, each claim needs to be
assessed individually. Therefore, the Award upon assessment of
compensation for each injured is being done separately.
Compensation in MACP No. 6502/16 (Injured Rohit Kumar)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
29. PW1 Sh. Rohit Kumar i.e. injured himself, has deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit (Ex. PW1/A) that after the accident, he was
taken to Saraswati Medical College, Anwarpur Hospital, Narela, Delhi and
thereafter, he was referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi, where he
remained admitted till 01.05.2010. He further deposed that thereafter, he was
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 18 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
admitted to Bharat Hospital, Meerut where he remained admitted till
17.06.2010. He further deposed that he had spent considerable amount on his
medical treatment. On being put to him during his cross-examination by
Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that he had not placed on record any
prescription for the medicine purchased by him against the bills, he deposed
that he had filed all the documents which were available with him. He
denied the suggestion that he had procured forged bills just to get
compensation.
30. It is relevant to note that the injured Rohit Kumar has relied
upon medical bills which are part of Ex. PW1/2(colly). It may be noted here
that during the course of arguments, the petitioner has filed list of medical
bills amounting to Rs.1,53,728.28/- incurred by him in his treatment. It is
quite evident that the respondents have not disputed the authenticity and
genuineness of the said medical bills during the course of inquiry as except
mere suggestions, no questions regarding the medical bills were put to the
witness. They have also not led any evidence in rebuttal so as to create any
doubt on the genuineness of said bills. Accordingly, a sum of
Rs. 1,53,728.28/- is awarded to the petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF INCOME
31. Injured namely Sh. Rohit Kumar (PW1) has deposed in his
evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A that he was aged about 24 years and
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 19 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
was working as Salesman at Risal Petro of Indian Oil and earning more than
Rs. 6,335/- per month at the time of accident. He further deposed that he was
the sole bread earner in his family and due to the injuries suffered by him in
the accident, he has suffered financial loss. During his cross-examination on
behalf of respondent no. 2, he denied the suggestion that since he was not
employed/working on the relevant date, therefore, he had not filed on record
any salary slip etc. During his cross-examination on behalf of respondent no.
3, he denied the suggestion that neither he was working nor he was earning
Rs. 6,335/-per month at the time of accident. He admitted that at the time of
accident, his residence was in District Ghaziabad. He again said that he was
residing at Bakhtawarpur, Delhi and on the date of accident, he was going to
his village at Ghaziabad. He admitted that he was working at the Petrol Pump
at Burari and was getting the salary of Rs. 14,000/- per month. He denied the
suggestion that on the date of accident, he was not residing in Delhi.
32. The treatment record i.e. Discharge Summary (which is part of
Ex. PW5/B colly) of Sushruta Trauma Centre, in respect of petitioner/injured
Sh. Rohit, would reveal that he was admitted in the said hospital on
17.04.2010 and was discharged on 01.05.2010. As per the said discharge
summary, the petitioner was found to have suffered fracture shaft femur left
with tibia right with open knee injury right. As per the treatment record filed
by the petitioner Rohit Kumar, his treatment continued for a considerable
period and his last treatment record i.e., prescription is dated 13.07.2010.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 20 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
33. In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record
showing the actual period till which the petitioner had received medical
treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to accident in question, it
would necessarily involve some guess work on the part of Tribunal in
assessing the loss of income. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it is
reasonable to consider that the petitioner would have been precluded to
resume his necessary activities of daily life for a period of 6 months which
includes period of recovery also.
34. Apart from the bald statement made by PW1 Sh. Rohit Kumar
that he was earning more than Rs. 6,335/- per month, no definite evidence
whatsoever has been brought on record to prove his monthly income at the
time of accident in question. Mere bald testimony of PW1 in this regard,
would not suffice. The petitioner has also failed to file his educational
qualification documents. Thus, his loss of income has to be assessed while
taking the income of an unskilled person under Minimum Wages Act
applicable during the period in question. The minimum wages of an
unskilled person were Rs. 5,278/- per month as on the date of accident which
is 17.04.2010. Thus, a sum of Rs. 31,668/- (Rs. 5,278/- x 6) is awarded in
favour of petitioner under this head.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
35. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-pecuniary
heads, guidance is derived from ruling of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 21 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed in appeal
bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, has been held as
under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed
on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to
case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the
petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he
mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the
said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of
anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without
movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In
order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am
guided by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of
decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On account of
pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is
difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money
value, However, compensation which has to be paid must
bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
36. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for a
considerable long duration for about six months from the date of accident and
remained incapacitated to resume his work of earnings for at least a period of
six months owing to grievous injuries suffered in the road traffic accident.
Thus, he would have undergone great physical sufferings, inconvenience and
mental trauma on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view the
nature of injuries, body part affected and duration of treatment, a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain & sufferings.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 22 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
37. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. Thus, he would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after
the accident in question and his quality of life has been definitely affected. In
view of the nature of injuries including permanent disability suffered by him
and his continued treatment for considerable period, I award a notional sum
of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life to the
petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
38. It is further claimed that petitioner has spent considerable
amount on his special diet, conveyance and attendant. It is relevant to note
here that the petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove the
amount, if any spent on special diet, conveyance and attendant as aforesaid
by him. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have taken special
rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would have also incurred
considerable amount towards conveyance charges while commuting to the
concerned hospital as OPD patient for his regular check up & follow up
during the period of his medical treatment. He would have been definitely
helped by some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his daily
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 23 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
activities as also while visiting the hospital during the course of his medical
treatment. There is no definite quantum of the expenses that has been proved
by the claimant through any bills, transport expenses or receipts from any
attendant. However, in view of the aforesaid detailed discussion, it is
considered reasonable to award composite amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the
petitioner under this head.
LOSS OF FUTURE PROSPECT
39. The petitioner has tendered Ex. PW1/3 in order to prove 28%
disability suffered by him due to the injuries caused in the accident. The said
document was objected to as to the mode of proof. It is relevant to mention
that petitioner did not file any application in this court for assessment of
disability. The said document was prepared by the treating doctor despite
opportunity. Petitioner has failed to examine the said doctor to prove the said
document. It is also relevant to mention here that the said certificate was not
prepared by any Medical Board which is to be constituted for the purpose of
assessment of disability.In view of the same, the said document
Ex. PW1/3 can not be read for the purpose of grant of compensation to the
petitioner under this head.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Medical expenses Rs. 1,53,728.28/-
2. Loss of income Rs. 31,668/-
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 24 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
4. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 50,000/-
enjoyment of life
5. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 40,000/-
attendant charges
Total Rs. 3,25,396.28p
Rounded off to Rs. 3,25,000/-
Compensation in MACP No. 6503/16 (Injured Savti)
MEDICAL EXPENSES
40. PW2 Smt. Savti i.e. injured herself, has deposed in her evidence
by way of affidavit (Ex. PW2/A) that after the accident, she was taken to
Saraswati Medical College, Anwarpur Hospital, Narela, Delhi and thereafter,
she was referred to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi, where she remained
admitted till 22.04.2010. He further deposed that thereafter, she was admitted
to Bharat Hospital, Meerut where she remained admitted till 07.06.2010. She
further deposed that she had spent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on her medical
treatment. During her cross-examination on behalf of respondent no. 2, she
she denied the suggestion that she had not suffered any injury in the accident
in question.
41. It is relevant to note that injured Smt. Savti had not relied upon
any medical bills. In the absence of any medical bills, no amount is granted to
the petitioner under this head.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 25 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
LOSS OF INCOME
42. PW1 has deposed that she was housewife and was taking care of
her family members at the time of accident.
43. The document i.e., Discharge Summary (which is part of
Ex. PW3/A) of Sushruta Trauma Centre, in respect of injured would reveal
that she was admitted in the said hospital on 17.04.2010 and was discharged
on 22.04.2010. As per the said discharge summary, the petitioner was found
to have suffered fracture ulna right distal ¼. Apart from the aforesaid
treatment record, petitioner Savti has failed to file any other treatment record.
In the absence of any definite evidence being brought on record showing the
actual period till which the petitioner had received medical treatment for the
injuries sustained by her due to accident in question, it would necessarily
involve some guess work on the part of Tribunal in assessing the loss of
income. In the absence of any cogent evidence, it is reasonable to consider
that the petitioner would have been precluded to resume his necessary
activities of daily life for a period of 3 months which includes period of
recovery also.
44. It may be noted here that it is an admitted fact that petitioner
Savti was housewife at the time of accident. It is relevant to mention here that
the purpose of granting compensation is to ameliorate the sufferings of the
victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents. While deciding claim petition under
M.V Act, the Claims Tribunal is guided by the principles of justice, equity
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 26 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
and good conscience and realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach is
appropriate.
45. In case titled Kirti & Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited (2021) 2 SCC 166, 3-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court while
discussing and highlighting the services rendered by housewife/homemaker
and assessment of her notional income as per minimum wages prescribed for
the State observed as under:
xxxxx
” Grant of compensation, on a pecuniary basis, with
respect to a homemaker, is a settled proposition of
law. Taking into account the gendered nature of
housework, with an overwhelming percentage of
women being engaged in the same as compared to
men, the fixing of notional income of a homemaker
attains special significance. It becomes a recognition
of the work, labour and sacrifices of homemakers and
a reflection of changing attitudes. It is also in
furtherance of our nation’s international law
obligations and our constitutional vision of social
equality and ensuring dignity to all. Various methods
can be employed by the Court to fix the notional
income of a homemaker, depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case. The Court should ensure
while choosing the method, and fixing the notional
income, that the same is just in the facts and
circumstances of the particular case, neither assessing
the compensation too conservatively, nor too
liberally. The granting of future prospects,on the
notional income calculated in such cases, is a
component of just compensation”
xxxxx
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 27 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
46. In the matter titled as Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Manmeet Singh & Ors.“, reported at 2012 ACJ 721
(Delhi), it has been held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the services
rendered by a housewife can not be counted; cooking, washing, ironing
clothes and stitching clothes (in some cases) for the husband and children,
teaching and guiding children, working as a nurse whenever the husband and
child/children are sick, are some of the major activities of a housewife. She
has no fixed hours of work; she is always in attendance to take care of each
and every need of the whole family at the cost of her personal comfort and
health. The services rendered by a housewife may differ from case to case
considering her qualification, financial strata and social status of the family to
which she belongs.
47. It is also relevant to note here that while deciding claim petition
under M.V Act, it is the duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more realistic, pragmatic
and liberal approach. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the
considered view that loss of income has to be assessed while taking the
income of a skilled person under Minimum Wages Act applicable during the
period in question. The minimum wages of a skilled person were Rs. 6,448/-
per month at the time of accident in question, which had occurred on
17.04.2010. Thus, a sum of Rs. 19,344/- (Rs. 6,448/- x 3 months) is awarded
in favour of petitioner under this head.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 28 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
PAIN AND SUFFERING
48. For the purpose of ascertaining compensation against non-
pecuniary heads, reliance is placed upon ruling of Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the matter titled as ” Nathu Lal Vs. Sandeep Gulati & Ors.” passed
in appeal bearing no. MAC.APP 770/2011 decided on 21.05.12, wherein it
has been held as under:-
“15. It is settled law that a particular amount cannot be fixed
on pain and sufferings for all cases as is varies from case to
case. Judicial notice can be taken on the fact that since the
petitioner had got injuries/fracture as aforesaid, he
mighthave suffered acute pain and sufferings owing to the
said injuries. He might have also consumed heavy dose of
anti-biotic etc. and also might have remained without
movements of his body for a considerable period of time. In
order to ascertain the pain and sufferings compensation, I am
guided by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
case Satya Narain v. Jai Kishan, FAO No.709/02, date of
decision: 2.2.2007, Delhi High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
Pradeep Nandrajog wherein it was held that:-“On account of
pain and suffering, suffice would it be to note that it is
difficult to measure pain and suffering in terms of a money
value, However, compensation which has to be paid must
bear some objectives co-relation with the pain and suffering.
The objective facts relatable to pain and suffering would be:
(a)Nature of injury.
(b)Body part affected.
(c)Duration of the treatment.”
49. As already considered, the petitioner required treatment for
about three months from the date of accident owing to grievous injuries
suffered by her in the road traffic accident. Thus, she would have undergone
great physical sufferings, inconvenience and mental trauma on account of the
accident in question. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by the
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 29 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
petitioner, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is considered reasonable towards pain &
sufferings.
LOSS OF GENERAL AMENITIES & ENJOYMENT OF LIFE
50. As already mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence on
record to establish that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident. Thus, she would not be able to enjoy general amenities of life after
the accident in question and her quality of life has been definitely affected.
In view of the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, I award a notional
sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of general amenities and enjoyment of life
to the petitioner.
CONVEYANCE, SPECIAL DIET & ATTENDANT CHARGES
51. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for petitioner argued
that petitioner has spent considerable amount on special diet, conveyance and
attendant charges. The petitioner has failed to lead any cogent evidence on
record in respect of amount incurred by her under the aforesaid heads. At the
same time, it cannot be overlooked that she had sustained grievous injuries in
the accident in question. Thus, she would have taken special rich protein diet
for her speedy recovery and would have also incurred considerable amount
towards conveyance charges while commuting to the concerned hospital as
OPD patient for her regular check up & follow up during the period of her
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 30 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
medical treatment. She would have been definitely helped by some person
either outsider or from her family, to perform her daily activities as also while
visiting the hospital during the course of her medical treatment. In these facts
and circumstances, I hereby award a sum of Rs. 10,000/-each for conveyance
charges, special diet and attendant charges to the petitioner.
Thus, the total compensation is assessed as under:-
1. Loss of income Rs. 19,344/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000/-
3. Loss of general amenities and Rs. 30,000/-
enjoyment of life
4. Conveyance, special diet and Rs. 30,000/-
attendant charges
Total Rs. 1,09,344p
Rounded off to Rs. 1,09,000/-
52. Now, the question which arises for determination is as to which
of the respondents is liable to pay the compensation amount. While opening
the arguments, Ld. counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that LRs of
respondent no. 2 have not been able to establish that respondent no. 2 had
already sold the offending vehicle prior to the date of accident. Ld. Counsel
for respondent no. 3 vehemently argued that since the respondent no. 2 was
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 31 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
the registered owner of offending vehicle, he got the offending vehicle
released on superdari from the concerned court. He further argued that the
offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent no. 2 as on the
date of accident and therefore, Lrs of deceased registered owner are liable to
pay the compensation amount to the petitioner(s) under the law.
53. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of respondent no. 2/Lrs of
deceased registered owner that since Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal (Proprietor
of registered owner Vardhman Paper Syndicate) had already sold the
offending vehicle to one Sh. Sanjay Gupta in the year 2008 i.e. much prior to
the date of accident, he or his legal heirs cannot be made liable to pay the
compensation amount under the law.
54. Ld counsel for respondent no. 3 vehemently argued that since
the RC of the offending vehicle was in the name of respondent no. 2
Vardhman Paper Syndicate as on the date of accident, LRs of deceased
proprietor of registered owner, are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner(s).
55. I have given my anxious consideration to the respectful
submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the light of evidence
available on record and the relevant case laws applicable to the point in issue.
I have also gone through the authority relied on behalf of respondent no. 3.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 32 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
56. In order to have better appreciation of the respective
submissions made on behalf of both the sides in the background of the facts
and circumstances of the present case as discussed above, it would be
appropriate to reproduce the provision contained in Section 50 of M.V Act.
Same reads as under:-
“50. Transfer of owners hip.
(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered
under this Chapter is transferred,-
(a) the transferor shall,-
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within
the same State, within fourteen days of the
transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such
form with such documents and in such
manner, as may be prescribed by the
Central Government to the registering
authority within whose jurisdiction the
transfer is to be effected and shall
simultaneously send a copy of the said
report to the transferee; and
(ii) in the case of a vehicle registered
outside the State, within forty-five days of
the transfer, forward to the registering
authority referred to in sub-clause(i)-
(A) the no objection certificate obtained
under section 48; or
(B) in a case where no such certificate has
been obtained.-
(I) the receipt obtained under sub-section
(2) of section 48; or
(II) the postal acknowledgment received by
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 33 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025the transferor if he has sent an application in
this behalf by registered post
acknowledgment due to the registering
authority referred to in section 48,
together with a declaration that he has not
received any communication from such
authority refusing to grant such certificate or
requiring him to comply with any direction
subject to which such certificate may be
granted;
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of
the transfer, report the transfer to the
registering authority within whose
jurisdiction he has the residence or place of
business where the vehicle is normally kept,
as the case may be, and shall forward the
certificate of registration to that registering
authority together with the prescribed fee
and a copy of the report received by him
from the transferor in order that particulars
of the transfer of ownership may be entered
in the certificate of registration.
(2) Where-
(a) the person in whose name a motor
vehicle stands registered dies, or
(b) a motor vehicle has been purchased or
acquired at a public auction conducted by,
or on behalf of, Government, the person
succeeding to the possession of the vehicle
or, as the case may be, who has purchased
or acquired the motor vehicle, shall make
an application for the purpose ofRohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 34 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025transferring the ownership of the vehicle in
his name, to the registering authority in
whose jurisdiction he has the residence or
place of business where the vehicle is
normally kept, as the case may be, in such
manner, accompanied with such fee, and
within such period as may be prescribed by
the Central Government.
(3) If the transferor or the transferee fails to
report to the registering authority the fact of
transfer within the period specified in clause
(a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1), as the
case may be, or if the person who is
required to make an application under sub-
section (2) (hereafter in this section referred
to as the other person) fails to make such
application within the period prescribed, the
registering authority may, having regard to
the circumstances of the case, require the
transferor or the transferee, or the other
person, as the case may be, to pay, in lieu of
any action that may be taken against him
under section 177 such amount not
exceeding one hundred rupees as may be
prescribed under sub-section (5):
Provided that action under section 177 shall
be taken against the transferor or the
transferee or the other person, as the case
may be, where he fails to pay the said
amount.
(4) Where a person has paid the amount
under sub-section (3), no action shall be
taken against him under section 177.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 35 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
(5) For the purposes of sub-section (3), a
State Government may prescribe different
amounts having regard to the period of
delay on the part of the transferor or the
transferee in reporting the fact of transfer of
ownership to be entered in the certificate of
registration.
(6) On receipt of a report under sub-section
(1), or an application under subsection (2),
the registering authority may cause the
transfer of ownership to be entered in the
certificate of registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such
entry shall communicate the transfer of
ownership to the transferor and to the original
registering authority, if it is not the original
registering authority.”
57. It is quite clear from the bare perusal of the provision
reproduced herein above that sub section (1) thereof casts duty upon
transferor of any motor vehicle to give intimation alongwith supporting
documents regarding sale of said vehicle to the Registering Authority within
14 days of the date of first transfer. It also casts duty upon transferor to report
within 30 days of transfer, the factum of transfer of any such vehicle to the
concerned Registering Authority. Sub Section (2) thereof is admittedly not
relevant in this case. According to Sub Section (3) thereof, any default on the
part of transferor or transferee to report the factum of transfer to the
Registering Authority within the stipulated period, may entail penalty upon
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 36 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
them as prescribed therein. Sub Sections (4) and (5) also deal about the
imposition of the penalty. Sub Section (6) provides that on receipt of
application under Sub Section (2), the Registering Authority may allow
transfer of ownership of such vehicle to be entered in the Certificate of
Registration and Sub Section (7) provides that after allowing transfer of
ownership of vehicle, Registering Authority shall communicate the same to
the transferor and also to the original Registering Authority, if it is not
original Registering Authority.
58. Rule 55 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, provides the procedure
to be followed at the time of transfer of any motor vehicle by its registered
owner to any other person.
59. Now turning back to the facts of the present case. The
respondent no. 2 i.e., proprietorship concern being represented through his
Proprietor Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal, through his legal heirs as he has
expired, cannot avoid to pay compensation amount by taking recourse to the
provision contained in Section 50 of M.V Act and / or Rule 55 of Central
Motor Vehicle Rules. It is an admitted position on record that respondent no.
2 i.e., Vardhman Paper Syndicate was the registered owner of offending
vehicle as on the date of accident in question. Copy of RC of offending
vehicle filed in the claim petition also corroborates the aforesaid fact of
ownership of offending vehicle by respondent no. 2 at the time of accident.
The respondent no. 3 has failed to comply with the requirements of Section
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 37 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
50 (1) (a) (i) of M.V Act inasmuch as he failed to send any written intimation
either to Registration Authority or even to the transferee, as provided therein.
60. It is an admitted fact by the registered owner in its WS that prior
to his death Sh. Kishan Chand Aggarwal (Proprietor of registered owner) had
sold the offending vehicle to one Sh. Sanjay Gupta (respondent no. 3 herein)
on 30.05.2008 and had delivered the offending vehicle to him vide a delivery
receipt dated 30.05.2008. However, it is claimed by the respondent no. 2 that
it has already sold the vehicle to the respondent no. 3 but no evidence in this
regard has been led by it. The respondent no. 3 has led evidence to the fact
that neither he was the owner nor in possession of offending vehicle at the
time of accident. During cross-examination of R3W1, he admitted his
signatures at point A on Ex. R3W1/DX1(Colly). However, he volunteered
that the same was got signed by him in blank and his signatures were
obtained by Sh. Kishan Aggarwal. A perusal of receipt Ex. R3W1/DX1
reveals that the same was not completely filled as the same does not bear the
name of seller and buyer. Even otherwise, the respondent no. 2 had relied
upon the pay in slip of bank which. A perusal of said pay in slip shows that
the same was dated 10.06.2010 and the name of the customer mentioned
therein was Vardhman Paper Syndicate which is respondent no. 2 herein.
Thus, it can be safely presumed that even on 10.06.2010, the EMI of the loan
amount was being paid by the respondent no. 2 and therefore, respondent no.
2 was the registered owner on the said date which is after the date of
accident.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 38 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
61. Again, turning back to the facts of the present case. The fact
remains that respondent no. 2 continued to be registered owner of the
offending vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, he would still continue to
remain liable to third party for death/bodily injury caused to any third party
involving use of the said vehicle. He cannot be allowed to escape from his
liability merely on this ground.
62. Similar question arose before Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter
titled as “P.P Mohammed Vs. K. Rajappan & Ors.” reported at 2003 ACJ
1595. In the said case, Hon’ble Apex Court had the occasion to deal with the
issue as to whether registered owner is jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount once, he/she had already sold the offending vehicle to
some other person. After discussing the legal position on this issue, Hon’ble
Apex Court has held in para nos. 7 & 8 of the judgment as under:-
“xxxx
7. Undoubtedly at first blush it appears as
if these observations support the case of
appellant. However, it has to be seen that
the question whether the original owner
gets absolved of his liability to a third
party was not before the Court. The only
question which was being considered by
the Court was, as set out in para 3, as
follows:
“(3) Whether due to the terms and
conditions of the contract, the Rajasthan
State Road Transport Corporation is not
liable?”
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 39 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
8. The above said observation is in
the context of this question. All that was
being considered in this case was the
rights of the original owner vis-a-vis those
of the transferee. Also the final decision is
based on the terms of the contract between
the parties. Therefore, they cannot be
drawn out of the context. It will
accordingly have to be held that the
appellant as the person, in whose name
registration continues, will remain liable
to a third person. However, the person in
actual possession would also be liable.
xxxxx”
63. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex Court in its
subsequent decision dated 12.01.2011 in the matter titled as ” Pushpa @
Leela & Ors. Vs. Shakntha & Ors.” passed in Civil Appeal No. 6924 of
2005.The relevant para nos. 9 to14 of the said judgment read as under:-
” xxxxx
9. The question of the liability of the recorded
owner of the vehicle has to be examined under
different provisions of the Act. Section 2(30) of
the Act defines “owner” in the following terms:
“2(30) “owner” means a person in whose name
a motor vehicle stands registered, and where
such person is a minor, the guardian of such
minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is
the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an
agreement of lease or an agreement of
hypothecation, the person in possession of the
vehicle under that agreement;”
(Emphasis added)
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 40 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
xxxxxx”
10. Then, section 50 of the Act lays down the
procedure for transfer of ownership. It is a long
section and insofar as relevant it is reproduced
below:-
“50. Transfer of ownership.
(1) Where the ownership of any motor vehicle
registered under this Chapter is transferred,-
(a) the transferor shall,-
(i) in the case of a vehicle registered within the
same State, within fourteen days of the transfer,
report the fact of transfer, in such form with such
documents and in such manner, as may be
prescribed by the Central Government to the
registering authority within whose jurisdiction
the transfer is to be effected and shall
simultaneously send a copy of the said report to
the transferee; and
(ii) xxxxxxx
(b) the transferee shall, within thirty days of the
transfer, report the transfer to the registering
authority within whose jurisdiction he has the
residence or place of business where the vehicle
is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall
forward the certificate of registration to that
registering authority together with the prescribed
fee and a copy of the report received by him
from the transferor in order that particulars of the
transfer of ownership may be entered in the
certificate ofRohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 41 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025registration.
(2) xxxxxxx
(3) xxxxxxx
(4) xxxxxx
(5) xxxxxx
(6) On receipt of a report under sub-section (1),
or an application under subsection (2), the
registering authority may cause the transfer of
ownership to be entered in the certificate of
registration.
(7) A registering authority making any such
entry shall communicate the transfer of
ownership to the transferor and to the original
registering authority, if it is not the original
registering authority.”
11. It is undeniable that notwithstanding the sale
of the vehicle neither the transferor Jitender
Gupta nor the transferee Salig Ram took any step
for the change of the name of the owner in the
certificate of registration of the vehicle. In view
of this omission Jitender Gupta must be deemed
to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the
purposes of the Act, even though under the civil
law he ceased to be its owner after its sale on
February 2, 1993.
12. The question of the liability of the recorded
owner of a vehicle after its sale to another person
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 42 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
was considered by this Court in Dr. T.V. Jose vs.
Chacko P.M., (2001) 8 SCC 748. In paragraphs 9
and 10 of the decision, the Court observed and
held as follows:-
“9. Mr. Iyer appearing for the Appellant submitted
that the High Court was wrong in ignoring the
oral evidence on record. He submitted that the
oral evidence clearly showed that the Appellant
was not the owner of the car on the date of the
accident. Mr. Iyer submitted that merely
because the name had not been changed in the
records of R.T.O. did not mean that the
ownership of the vehicle had not been
transferred. Mr. Iyer submitted that the real
owner of the car was Mr. Roy Thomas. Mr. Iyer
submitted that Mr. Roy Thomas had been made
party-Respondent No.9 to these Appeals. He
pointed out that an Advocate had filed appearance
on behalf of Mr. Roy Thomas but had then
applied for and was permitted to withdraw the
appearance. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas
had been duly served and a public notice had also
been issued. He pointed out that Mr. Roy Thomas
had chosen not to appear in these Appeals. He
submitted that the liability, if any, was of Mr. Roy
Thomas.
10. We agree with Mr. Iyer that the High Court
was not right in holding that the Appellant
continued to be the owner as the name had not
been changed in the records of R.T.O. There can
be transfer of title by payment of consideration
and delivery of the car. The evidence on record
shows that ownership of the car had been
transferred. However the Appellant still
continued to remain liable to third parties asRohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 43 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as
the owner. T he Appellant could not escape that
liability by merely joining Mr. Roy Thomas in
these Appeals. Mr. Roy Thomas was not a party
either before MACT or the High Court. In these
Appeals we cannot and will not go into the
question of inter se liability between the
Appellant and Mr. Roy Thomas. It will be for the
Appellant to adopt appropriate proceedings
against Mr. Roy Thomas if, in law, he is entitled
to do so.”
(Emphasis added)
xxxxxx”
13. Again, in P.P. Mohammed vs. K. Rajappan &
Ors., (2008) 17 SCC 624, this Court examined
the same issue under somewhat similar set of
facts as in the present case. In paragraph 4 of the
decision, this Court observed and held as follows:
“4. These appeals are filed by the appellants. The
insurance company has chosen not to file any
appeal. The question before this Court is whether
by reason of the fact that the vehicle has been
transferred to Respondent 4 and thereafter to
Respondent 5, the appellant got absolved from
liability to the third person who was injured. This
question has been answered by this Court in T.V.
Jose (Dr.) v. Chacko P.M. wherein it is held that
even though in law there would be a transfer of
owners hip of the vehicle, that, by itself, would
not absolve the party, in whose name the
vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to
a third person. We are in agreement with the
view expressed therein. Merely because the
vehicle was transferred does not mean that theRohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 44 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025appellant stands absolved of his liability to a
third person. So long as his name continues in
RTO records, he remains liable to a third
person.”
(Emphasis added)
14. The decision in Dr. T.V. Jose was rendered
under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But having
regard to the provisions of section 2(30) and
section 50 of the Act, as noted above, the ratio of
the decision shall apply with equal force to the
facts of the case arising under the 1988 Act. On
the basis of these decisions, the inescapable
conclusion is that Jitender Gupta, whose name
continued in the records of the registering
authority as the owner of the truck was equally
liable for payment of the compensation amount.
Further, since an insurance policy in respect of
the truck was taken out in his name he was
indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the
insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Xxxxx”
64. Similar view has been taken by Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of ” Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.“,
reported at (2018) 3 SCC as well as in its subsequent decision in the case of “
Prakash Chand Daga Vs. Saveta Sharma & Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 11369 of
2018 decided on 14.12.18.
65. Having judged the facts of the present on the touch stone of the
legal position discussed above, in view of the reasons given herein above and
the fact that offending vehicle was uninsured, respondent no. 1 being
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 45 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
principal tort-feasor and respondent no. 2(through LRs of deceased proprietor
of registered owner/R2) being owner of the offending vehicle and thus,
vicariously liable for the acts of principal tort-feasor, are jointly and severally
liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount to the petitioner. Issue no. 2
is decided accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3/RELIEF
66. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 & 2, following order is
passed after relying upon judgment “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baby
Raksha & Ors. MAC APP. No. 36/2023 on 21.04.2023, on the point of
interest.
a) A sum of Rs. 3,25,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty
Five Thousand Only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC
Petition No. 6502/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of
petitioner and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.
08.06.2016(except for the period of delay w.e.f., 24.10.2024 till 18.03.2025)
till the date of its realization.
b) A sum of Rs. 1,09,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Nine
Thousand only) (including interim award amount, if any) in MAC Petition
No. 6503/16 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of petitioner
and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of the petition i.e.
08.06.2016(except for the period of delay w.e.f., 24.10.2024 till 18.03.2025)
till the date of its realization.
Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 46 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
APPORTIONMENT
67. Statement of petitioner Rohit Kumar in terms of Clause 29
MCTAP was recorded on 14.02.2024 on his behalf as well as on behalf of his
mother who was also injured in the connected case. Having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that the entire
awarded amount alongwith up to date interest, be immediately released to the
petitioners in both the cases through their respective bank account no.
3077000107190483(of Sh. Rohit Kumar), Punjab National Bank, Sant
Nirankari Colony, Near Dhakka, Delhi, having IFSC Code PUNB0307700
and A/c No. 3077000107253481(of Smt. Savti), Punjab National Bank, Sant
Nirankari Colony, Near Dhakka, Delhi, having IFSC Code PUNB0307700,
as per rules.
68. Since the offending vehicle was uninsured, the respondent no. 1
& 2, are directed to deposit the award amount as aforesaid in the aforesaid
bank accounts of the claimants within 30 days as per above order, failing
which they shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a for the period of delay in
terms of directions passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment titled
“Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal & Ors.”, S.L.P. (C) No. 4484 OF 2020,
DOD:18.03.2025.
69. Concerned Manager of petitioner’s bank is directed to release
the amount to the petitioner(s) as aforesaid, on completing necessary
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 47 of 48
MACP Nos. 6502/16 & 6503/16; FIR No. 252/10 DOD: 05.06.2025
formalities as per rules. Copy of the award be given dasti to the petitioner(s)
and also to counsel for the insurance company for compliance. Petitioners
are also directed to provide copy of this award to their bank Manager for
compliance. Form XVI & Form XVII in terms of MCTAP are annexed
herewith as Annexure-A. Copy of order be also sent to concerned CJM/JMFC
and DLSA as per clause 31 and 32 of MCTAP. Signed copy of this Award be
placed on the judicial record of MAC Petition No. 6503/16, as per the rules.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA MANCHANDA
Announced in the open MANCHANDA Date:
2025.06.05
Court on 05.06.2025 15:24:57 +0545
(RICHA MANCHANDA)
Judge MACT-2 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Rohit Kumar & Savti Vs. Sahabuddin & Ors. Page 48 of 48