[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Shahjahan Khatoon … vs Amandeep Singh (Oic) on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHIKA SINGLA
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010133282021
MACT No. : 742/2021
FIR No. : 267/2021
PS : Timarpur
u/s : 279/337/338/304A IPC
Ms. Shahjahan Khatoon (injured)
W/o. Sh. Mohd. Abdul
R/o. H.No.800-B, Gali No. 38,
Sadarpur near Khazoor Masjid,
Sector-45, Noida, U.P.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Amandeep Singh (driver of the offending vehicle)
S/o. Sh. Balbir Singh,
R/o. Village Malve Ki Kothi, Umarpura,
PS Batala City District, Gurdaspur, Punjab.
2. Smt. Karamjit Kaur (owner of the offending vehicle)
W/o. Sh. Surjit Singh,
R/o. H.405, Gali No.4, near Alipur Road Dasan Nagar,
Patiala, Punjab.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company (Insurer)
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 06.10.2021
Judgment reserved on : 08.07.2025
Date of Award : 16.07.2025
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:58:15
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 1 of 32
AWAR D
1. The Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on
06.10.2021 which was treated as a claim petition. The Road Traffic
Accident in question took place on 05.08.2021 at about 01:10 PM near
Nirmal Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi. Ms.
Shahjahan Khatoon (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) had
suffered simple injuries in the said accident which was allegedly caused
by vehicle bearing registration No. PB-11CF-9174 (hereinafter referred
to as the offending vehicle) The said vehicle was being driven by
respondent No.1, Mr. Amandeep Singh; owned by respondent no. 2,
Smt. Karamjit Kaur and insured with respondent no.3, The Oriental
Insurance Company.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on
18.03.2016, on receipt of information of an accident vide DD No. 38A,
the information of the present accident was handed over to ASI Sunil
Kumar, who along with HC Manoj went to the spot i.e. near Nirmal
Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi where many people
were gathered, Punjab Roadways Bus bearing no. PB-11CF-9174 was
stationed on roadside and Scooty bearing no. UP-16CA-2105 was
stationed on the footpath in an accidental condition. The driver of the
offending bus was caught hold by Ct. Neeraj, whose name was later
revealed as Sh. Amandeep Singh. Ct. Neeraj told the IO that one auto
rickshaw took all the three injured to Trauma Centre Hospital. No eye
witness was found at the spot. After leaving HC Manoj at the spot, IO Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16
16:58:35
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 2 of 32
went to Trauma Centre Hospital, where one injured Sh. Abdul vide
MLC No. 24232/21 was found admitted and injured namely Smt.
Shahjahan (wife of injured Abdul) was also found admitted vide MLC
No.24233/21. Vide MLC No. 24234/21, one Sohail (son of injured) aged
about 9 years was also found admitted. Upon his medical examination,
doctors declared him as “Brought Dead”.
3. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Sh.Abdul (who is
husband of injured Shahjahan Khatoon), in which he had stated that “he
is carpenter by profession. On 05.08.2021 at about 1:20 PM, he
alongwith his wife Shahjahan and his son Sohail (aged 9 years) were
going to attend a marriage at Bawana by scooty. As and when they
reached near Nirmal Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi,
suddenly a Punjab Roadways Bus hit them from the back side and he,
his wife alongwith their scooty struck under the Bus and his son fell
away at some distance. After accident public persons stopped that bus
and the police official also reached at the spot. Police official managed
to pull out his scooty after taking the bus back. Police officials sent us to
Trauma Centre Hospital in an auto. The registration number of the bus is
PB-11CF-9174. The driver of the bus came down from the bus and he
can identify the bus driver. He requested to take action against the driver
of the offending vehicle, who had caused the accident due to rash and
negligent driving.” On the basis of PCR Call and MLCs, offence under
section 279/337/304A IPC was found to have been committed and
accordingly, FIR was registered.
4. During the course of investigation, after preparing rukka,
RUCHIKA
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:58:39
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 3 of 32
IO handed over the same to HC Manoj and sent him to the police station
for registration of FIR of the present case. Thereafter, IO called the
Crime Team at the spot and got conducted the inspection and
photographs of the place of the accident. Crime team collected the
exhibits and handed over the same to the IO in evidence. Thereafter, IO
recorded the statement of Crime Team. Thereafter, HC Manoj reached
there and handed over the computerized FIR to IO. Thereafter, the IO
prepared the site plan of the spot of accident. He also took both the
vehicles i.e. offending bus bearing no. PB-11CF-9174 and Scooty
bearing no. UP-16CA-2105 of the victim into custody. IO interrogated
the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver had admitted his
offence. Thereafter, IO arrested the driver Amandeep Singh, however,
since the offence was bailable, he was released on bail on furnishing of
bail bonds. IO had stored/taken the CCTV footage of the place of
accident into the pendrive and taken the same into his custody under
certificate u/s.65B Evidence Act. Thereafter, both the vehicles had
deposited in the Maalkhana and recorded the statement of other
witnesses.
5. On 06.08.2021, IO recorded the statement of the relative of
deceased Sohail regarding his identity and got conducted the post
mortem vide PM No.1002/2021. Thereafter, IO had handed over the
body of deceased to his brother Gulab Ahmad. On 07.08.2021, IO
collected the documents i.e. Original RC, photocopies of insurance
policy, permit and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle from the
husband of the owner of the offending vehicle and took the same into
the custody. Thereafter, the IO got conducted the mechanical inspection Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:58:44MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 4 of 32
+0530
of both the vehicles and collected the report. Thereafter, IO recorded the
statements u/s. 161 Cr.PC and after taking the photographs of the
offending bus bearing no. PB-11CF-9174 and panchnama, released the
offending vehicle on superdari to the husband of the owner of the
offending vehicle Sh. Surjeet Singh. Thereafter, the case file of MACT
had been marked to MACT Cell North and the present case was
accordingly assigned to Senior Officer SI.
6. Thereafter, IO/SI collected the other MLCs and deposited
the same for final opinion in the hospital. Thereafter, the scooty of
victim bearing no. UP-16CA-2105 was got released on superdari.
During investigation, IO/SI collected the MLCs in which the MLC no.
24232/21 of injured Abdul was opined by the doctors as “Grievous”,
MLC no. 24233/21 of injured Shahjahan was opined by the doctors as
“Simple”. On the MLC of injured Shahjahan Khatoon, the offence u/s.
337 IPC was added due to the simple injury opined by the doctors. The
owner of the offending vehicle did not produce the DL of the driver of
the offending vehicle, therefore, the offence u/s.3/181 MV Act was
added. Thereafter, IO got verified all the documents pertaining to the
offending vehicle and the same were found to be correct. After
completion of investigation, chargesheet for the offences u/s
279/337/338/304A IPC & 3/181 MV Act was filed against the driver of
the offending vehicle, Mr. Amandeep Singh before the concerned Ld.
JMFC and the DAR was filed before this Tribunal.
7. Reply on behalf of respondent no. 3 was filed on
24.12.2022. No written statement was filed by respondent nos.1 & 2.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16
16:58:48
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 5 of 32
+0530
Respondent nos. 1 & 2 did not appear before this Tribunal and were,
thus, proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15.05.2024 & 23.01.2025.
ISSUES
8. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated
23.09.2022, this Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner Smt. Shahjahan Khatoon suffered
injuries in an accident that took place on 05/08/2021 at about
01:10 PM involving vehicle bearing registration no.
PB-11CF-9174 driven by the respondent no.1 rashly and
negligently, owned by the Respondent no. 2 and insured with
Respondent no. 3 ? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Relief.
PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE
9. The petitioner/injured examined herself as PW-1. PW1 has
tendered her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A. She
deposed in reiteration of the facts as alleged in the DAR. She stated in
her evidence that she is illiterate and she is aware about the contents of
her affidavit. She has further stated that she is not aware about the
distance between her home and place of incident. She had denied that at
the time driving the scooty she and her husband were not wearing the
helmets. She further stated that she cannot tell where they fell down. She
had further stated that the police came at the spot of accident and they
were taken to the Trauma Centre, LNJP, Delhi Gate, Delhi by auto. She
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:58:52
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 6 of 32
had denied that the present accident occurred due to the negligence of
her husband, who was driving the scooty. She had further stated that the
doctor of LNJP Hospital examined her with 15 minutes she reached the
hospital and as per her MLC the injury was opined by the doctor is
“simple” in nature and the MLC is Ex. PW-2. She had denied that her
husband was driving the scooty in Zig Zag manner and her husband’s
scooty had hit the another vehicle. She had stated that she was
discharged from LNJP Hospital on 05.08.2021 and the discharge sheet is
Ex. PW-3.
10. She had further stated that the police had never met her and
not recorded her statement. She had denied that her husband had falsely
implicated the driver of the offending vehicle. She had further stated that
she was not the complainant in the FIR no. 267/2021 dated 05.08.2021.
She had further stated that as per MLC the doctor had not mentioned
any fracture on her body. She had further stated that the bills Ex. PW-8
to PW-12 were in accordance with the prescription qua the medicines
mentioned in the bills Ex. PW-8 to PW-12. She had denied that she had
filed the false and fabricated medical treatment bills. She had admitted
that some of the medical bills are unsigned. She had further stated that
she availed the services of an attendant and paid Rs.5000/- in cash to her
but she could not produce any invoice of the same. She had denied that
she had filed the wrong and false affidavit, documents. She had further
denied that she had deposed falsely to get the claim. She relied the
following documents :
1. True copy of Aadhar card Ex. P-1 (OSR) Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:58:57
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 7 of 32
2. True copy of Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) is Ex. P-2.
3. True copy of discharge summary dated 05.08.2021 Ex. P-3 (OSR).
4. True copy of FIR no.267 dated 05.08.2021 Ex. P-4.
5. True copy of charge-sheet Ex. P-5.
6. True copy of DAR Ex. P-6.
7. True copy of prescription cum bill of Khan Health Clinic and Eye
Centre dated 08.08.2021 Ex. P-7 (OSR).
8. True copy of invoice dated 07.08.2021 Ex. P-8 (OSR).
9. True copy of invoice dated 27.08.2021 Ex. P-9 (OSR).
10. True copy of invoice dated 29.08.2021 Ex. P-10 (OSR).
11. True copy of invoice dated 20.09.2021 Ex. P-11 (OSR).
12. True copy of invoice dated 25.10.2021 Ex. P-12 (OSR).
11. No other witness was examined and thereafter, PE was
closed vide order dated 02.02.2023 before the Ld. Local Commissioner.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
12. In its evidence, the respondent no. 3 produced R3W1 Sh.
Pawan Kumar, Junior Assistant, Transport Department, Govt. of UP,
who proved that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent no. 1
was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. His
authority letter was proved as Ex. R3W1/1 and the report was proved as
Ex. R3W1/2.
13. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 produced R3W2 Ms. Bharti
Meena, Deputy Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, who proved on
record the following documents: Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:01
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 8 of 32
1. Her authority letter as Ex. R3W2/1.
2. Copy of the insurance policy as Ex. R3W2/2.
3. Copy of the notice under Order XII Rule 8 issued to respondent no. 2
for production of the original driving licence as Ex. R3W2/3
4. Postal receipts of the same as Ex R3W2/4.
Thereafter, RE was closed vide order dated 28.04.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. The Petitioner/injured filed his duly filled Form XIV and
his financial statement was recorded. Final arguments were heard on
behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
15. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel
for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. My findings on the various
issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether the petitioner Smt. Shahjahan Khatoon suffered injuries
in an accident that took place on 05/08/2021 at about 01:10 PM
involving vehicle bearing registration no. PB-11CF-9174 driven
by the respondent no.1 rashly and negligently, owned by the
Respondent no. 2 and insured with Respondent no. 3 ? OPP
16. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. It is
the case of the petitioner that on 05.08.2021 at about 01:10 PM near
Nirmal Hirday Church Ring Road, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi while she was Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:06
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 9 of 32
going on a scooty with hher husband and child, the respondent no. 1 was
driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he hit
the scooty from the back side. The petitioner has reiterated these
allegations on oath. She was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 3. During the course of cross examination certain
suggestions were put by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3 to the
petitioner that the accident was caused by the rash and negligence of her
husband and not by the rash and negligence of respondent no. 1.
However, all these suggestions were denied by the petitioner. The
petitioner as such remained firm on her testimony and nothing contrary
could be brought out.
17. Further perusal of the DAR shows that the scooty and the
offending vehicle were seized by the IO from the place of accident.
Furthermore, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and the owner of
the offending vehicle have been proceeded against ex-parte and they did
not bother to join the present proceedings. No cross examination was
done by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 qua the fact that the accident was
not caused by the rashness and negligence of the respondent no.1. Even
otherwise, the petitioner was unknown to respondent no.1 prior to the
accident and admittedly, there was no prior enmity with respondent no.
1 and hence, it is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner will
implicate respondent no.1 falsely, had he not been driving the offending
vehicle.
18. Further, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be
expected to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubts and the Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:11 +0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 10 of 32
principle of res ipse loquitor should apply which means that the
“accident speaks for itself”. Thus, once it has been established in DAR
and chargesheet that the accident had taken place, the burden shifts on
the respondents to prove that they were not responsible for the accident
which the respondents have failed to discharge. No evidence was led by
the respondents no. 1 & 2 to discharge this onus. Hence, an adverse
inference is drawn against the respondents. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of
Teja Singh Vs Suman & Ors., MAC. APP. 1111/2018 & CM APPL.
52384/2018, 52386/2018, date of decision 06/12/2019; MAC. APP.
428/2018, titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla Devi &
Ors, date of decision 08.11.2019 and MAC. APP. 690/2017 & CM
APPL. 28108/2017, titled as Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs Mona & Ors., date of decision 15.10.2019, which had relied upon the
judgment in the case of Cholamandalam Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kamlesh
2009(3) AD Delhi 310.
19. Further, it has to be considered that in the present matter,
the incident of the accident cannot be denied. It is pertinent to mention
here that in the proceedings before the claims tribunal, the facts are to be
established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and not by the
strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable
doubt as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in the present
cases is much lower than as placed in civil or criminal cases. In Bimla
Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13
SC 530, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that
negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:23
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 11 of 32
probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a
conclusion.
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 has laid down in paragraphs 27 &
28:
“27. …This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the
part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up
by the claimants was required to be decided by the
Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability and certainly not by standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that
the exposition in the judgments already adverted to
by us, filing of chargesheet against Respondent 2
prima facie points towards his complicity in driving
the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even
when the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the same may
be of no effect on the assessment of the liability
required in respect of motor accident cases by the
Tribunal.
28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B.
Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in
our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these
cases is on the matter in issue in the case
concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender
Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present
case, considering the entirety of the pleadings,
evidence and circumstances on record and in
particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on
the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:28
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 12 of 32
driver of the offending jeep, the High Court
committed manifest error in taking a contrary view
which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the
face of record and manifestly wrong.”
21. In view of the same, considering the facts and
circumstances, the unrebutted testimony of the petitioner and the
documents filed thereto, the court is satisfied that the accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1.
From the DAR, it also stands established that respondent no. 2, Smt.
Karamjit Kaur was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. It is
also an admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured with
respondent no.3, The Oriental Insurance Company vide Policy No.
233500/31/2021/3311 valid w.e.f. 22.10.2020 to 21.10.2021. The factum
of the said insurance is also admitted by the respondent no.3 insurance
company.
Contributory negligence:
22. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 that in the
present matter, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s husband was
driving his scooty alongwith his wife and child. It is stated that as per
the traffic rules, only two persons are allowed on a scooty or a two-
wheeler. It is submitted that as the petitioner was indulged in triple
riding on the scooty, he is guilty of contributory negligence. However, in
Mohammed Siddique vs National Insurance Company (2020) 2 SCALE
565, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“12. It is seen from the material on record that the
accident occurred at about 2:00 a.m. on 5.09.2008. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:32
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 13 of 32
Therefore, there was no possibility of heavy traffic
on the road. The finding of fact by the Tribunal, as
confirmed by the High Court, was that the motor
cycle in which the deceased was travelling, was hit
by the car from behind and that therefore it was
clear that the accident was caused by the rash and
negligent driving of the car. In fact, the High Court
confirms in paragraph 4 of the impugned order that
the motor cycle was hit by the car from behind.
But it nevertheless holds that 3 persons on a motor
cycle could have added to the imbalance. The
relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the order of the
High Court reads as follows:
“On careful assessment of the evidence led, this
Court finds substance in the plea of the insurance
company. While it is correct that the offending car
had no business to strike from behind against the
motorcycle moving ahead of it, even if the motor
cycle was changing lane to allow another vehicle
to overtake, the fact that a motor vehicle meant for
only two persons to ride was carrying, besides the
driver, two persons on the pillion would
undoubtedly have added to the imbalance.”
13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed.
The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor
cycle along with the driver and another, may not,
by itself, without anything more, make him guilty
of contributory negligence. At the most it would
make him guilty of being a party to the violation of
the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two
wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one
person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:37
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 14 of 32
by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a
penalty for violation of safety measures for motor
cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact
that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle
along with the driver and one more person on the
pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such
violation by itself, without anything more, cannot
lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless
it is established that his very act of riding along
with two others, contributed either to the accident
or to the impact of the accident upon the victim.
There must either be a causal connection between
the violation and the accident or a causal
connection between the violation and the impact of
the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at
times, that the accident could have been averted or
the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser
degree, if there had been no violation of the law by
the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in
a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous
injury or even death due to the violation of the law
by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the
violation of the law, either the accident could have
been averted or the impact could have been
minimized, that the principle of contributory
negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of
the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a
result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is
not even the case of the insurer that the accident
would have been averted, if three persons were not
riding on the motor cycle. The fact that the motor
cycle was hit by the car from behind, is admitted.
Interestingly, the finding recorded by the Tribunal
that the deceased was wearing a helmet and that
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:41
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 15 of 32
the deceased was knocked down after the car hit
the motor cycle from behind, are all not assailed.
Therefore, the finding of the High Court that 2
persons on the pillion of the motor cycle, could
have added to the imbalance, is nothing but
presumptuous and is not based either upon
pleading or upon the evidence on record. Nothing
was extracted from PW3 to the effect that 2
persons on the pillion added to the imbalance.
14. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to
show that the wrongful act on the part of the
deceased victim contributed either to the accident
or to the nature of the injuries sustained, the victim
could not have been held guilty of contributory
negligence. Hence the reduction of 10% towards
contributory negligence, is clearly unjustified and
the same has to be set aside. ”
23. In the present matter as well, there is nothing on record to
suggest that due to the triple riding by the petitioner and her family, the
accident was caused. It is proved on record that the offending vehicle hit
the scooty of the petitioner from behind. Hence, the petitioner cannot be
held liable for contributory negligence.
24. It is also submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 3
that the petitioner and her family members were not wearing any
helmets while riding the scooty. However, as such no evidence has been
led by the respondent no. 3 to prove this facts. Even otherwise, non
wearing of the helmet by the petitioner did not affect the nature of
injuries sustained by the petitioner in the present matter. Hence, the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:45
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 16 of 32
amount of compensation cannot be affected due to this reason.
The injury:
25. Further, the onus to prove that the petitioner had suffered
injuries by way of the said accident was on the petitioner. In this regard,
the petitioner has relied upon her MLC bearing no. 24233/21 prepared at
Lok Nayak Hospital, Delhi dated 05.08.2021 Ex.P2 as per which it has
been opined by the concerned doctor that there was history of road
traffic accident and she suffered lacerations and abrasions on her body.
The petitioner also relied upon her discharge summary Ex.P3, which is
corroborative of the same.
26. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the
opinion that on the scales of preponderance of probabilities, the
petitioner has proved that the accident in question took place due to rash
and negligent driving of offending vehicle being driven by its
driver/respondent no. 1 on the date and time of the accident and that due
to the said accident, the petitioner had suffered simple injury.
Accordingly, issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondents.
ISSUE NO. 2:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what amount and from whom? (OPP)
27. The onus to prove this issue was also upon the petitioner. In
view of the observations as given in issue no.1, the petitioner is entitled Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
16:59:55
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 17 of 32
for compensation. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(2011) 1 SCC 34, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“General principles relating to
compensation in injury cases
4. The provision of The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (`Act’ for short) makes it
clear that the award must be just, which
means that compensation should, to the
extent possible, fully and adequately restore
the claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages is
to make good the loss suffered as a result of
wrong done as far as money can do so, in a
fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The
Court or tribunal shall have to assess the
damages objectively and exclude from
consideration any speculation or fancy,
though some conjecture with reference to the
nature of disability and its consequences, is
inevitable. A person is not only to be
compensated for the physical injury, but also
for the loss which he suffered as a result of
such injury. This means that he is to be
compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal
amenities which he would have enjoyed but
for the injuries, and his inability to earn as
much as he used to earn or could have
earned. (See C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T.
Kunhikuttan Nair – AIR 1970 SC 376, R. D.
Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. –
1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker vs. Willoughby
– 1970 AC 467).
5. The heads under which Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16
17:00:00
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 18 of 32
compensation is awarded in personal injury
cases are the following :
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains)
which the injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period
of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account
of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General
Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and
trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv).”
28. In view of the above law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India, in injury cases, award needs to be passed only under
heads of medical expenses, loss of earning during treatment period and
damages for pain, suffering and trauma. This is a case where the
petitioner has claimed that she suffered simple injury due to the
accident, hence, this Tribunal now proceeds further step by step to
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16
17:00:26
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 19 of 32
decide the compensation/award under different heads applicable to the
present matter in light of above preposition.
Medical expenses:
29. The petitioner has claimed Rs. 25,053/- towards medical
expenses. She has filed the relevant medical bills on record, which are
Ex.P7 (colly). Hence, the amount of Rs. 25,053/- is awarded to the
petitioner.
Loss of income:
30. In this regard, the petitioner has claimed that she is a
housewife. She has not claimed any damages towards loss of income.
Hence, no damages are awarded to her under this head.
Special diet:
31. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month
towards special diet. Although, there is no bill to support her plea, but
keeping in view the nature of injury suffered by the petitioner, it seems
that she must have required special diet and must have incurred
expenditure towards special diet, therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is
awarded to the petitioner under the head of special diet.
Conveyance charges:
32. The petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on conveyance, however, considering her injuries, the petitioner is
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance charges. Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:02:05
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 20 of 32
Attendant charges:
33. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards
conveyance charges. Admittedly there is no document showing expense
on an attendant, however, considering her injuries, the petitioner is
awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards attendant charges.
Mental and Physical Shock, Pain and Sufferings & Loss of Amenities:
34. As stated above, the claimant suffered simple injuries in the
accident. Though, it is not possible to exactly compensate her for the
shock, pain and sufferings etc. which the injured had actually suffered
because of the injuries suffered by her, but an effort has to be made to
compensate her for the same in a just and reasonable manner. Hence,
keeping in view the extent and nature of the injuries suffered by the
claimant, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is being awarded to him towards
pain and sufferings and Rs. 15,000/- towards mental and physical shock.
However, the claimant is not held entitled to any loss of amenities. Thus,
she is awarded total amount of Rs.25,000/- under this head.
Disfiguration & Loss of marriage prospects
35. Nil.
Loss of earning, inconvenience, disappointment, frustration, mental
stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc.:
36. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs. 500,000/- under
this head. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by the
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:02:16
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 21 of 32
petitioner, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under this
head.
37. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances,
the material on record, and the settled principles and guidelines
governing the injury cases like the present one, the compensation is
being derived in the present case as under:-
NAME OF HEAD AMOUNT (in Rupees) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 25,053/- Monthly income of injured Nil Loss of income x 6 months Nil Add future prospects Nil
Loss of future income (income X Nil
% Earning Capacity X Multiplier)
Any other loss/expenditure Nil.
Expense on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 5,000/- Attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Mental & Physical Shock & Pain & Rs. 25,000/-
Suffering & Loss of amenities Disfiguration Nil Loss of marriage prospects Nil. Digitally signed by RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA SINGLA Date: 2025.07.16 17:02:35 +0530 MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 22 of 32
Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 10,000/-
hardship, disappointment, frustration, mental stress, dejectment and unhappiness in future life etc. Total Rs. 75,053/-
38. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @
Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum.
Therefore, it is held that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 12.10.2021 till realization.
DISBURSEMENT
39. The Financial Statement of petitioner/injured was recorded
by this Court/Tribunal. As per the said statement, the monthly expenses
of his family are approximately Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per month.
40. After considering the financial statement of the petitioner, it
is held that on realization of the award amount of Rs. 75,053/- (Rupees
Seventy Five Thousand Fifty Three only), the entire amount plus entire
interest amount be released to the petitioner/claimant Shahjahan
Khatoon in her MACAD bank account maintained at State Bank of
India, Sector 100, NOIDA bearing no. 44265595544, IFSC no.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:02:39
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 23 of 32
SBIN0011600, CIF no. 85863166439.
41. It is clarified that the amount shall be released to the
petitioner only on submitting the copy of passbook of such saving
account in a bank near his residence with endorsement of the bank that
no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been
issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued
without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
42. In compliance of the directions given by Hon’ble High
Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award
in the prescribed Format-XVI is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
Date of Accident: 05.08.2021
Name of the Injured: Shahjahan Khatoon
Age of the Injured: Presently 39 years
Occupation of the Injured: Housewife
Income of the Injured: Nil
Nature of Injury: Simple
Medical Treatment taken: LNJP Hospital, Delhi.
Period of Hospitalization: N.A.
Whether any permanent: No
disability?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:02:44
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 24 of 32
COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION
Sr. Heads Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
No.
1. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on Treatment Rs. 25,053/-
(ii) Expenditure on Special Diet Rs. 5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on Rs. 5,000/-
Nursing/Attendant charges
(iv) Expenditure on Conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
(v) Monthly income of injured Nil
(vi) Loss of income x 6 months Nil
(vii) Add future prospects Nil
viii) Any other loss which may Nil
require any special treatment or
aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
2. Non Pecuniary Loss
(i) Compensation for mental and
physical shock Rs. 25,000/-
(ii) Pain and Sufferings
(iii) Loss of amenities of life
(iv)
Disfiguration Nil.
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil.
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, Rs. 10,000/-
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
3. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed Nil.
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16
17:02:47
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 25 of 32
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of Nil.
expectation of life span on
account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning Nil.
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (income Nil.
x % earning capacity x
Multiplier)
4. Total Rs. 75,053/-
1(ii+iii+iv+vi)+2(i+ii+vi)
5. Total Compensation Rs. 75,053/-
Interest awarded 9%
6. Earlier award amount (which has
already been received by the
petitioner in terms of previous –
award passed by Ld.
Predecessor) to be deducted
from present award amount .
7. Interest amount upto the date of Rs. 25,518/-
award w.e.f. 12.10.2021 till
realization (45 months and 10
days)
8. Total amount including Interest Rs. 1,00,571/-
9. Award amount released As mentioned in para no. 40
10. Award amount kept in FDRs N/A
11. Mode of disbursement of the As mentioned in para no. 40
award amount of the claimant(s)
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:02:51
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 26 of 32
12. Next date for compliance of the 18.08.2025
award
LIABILITY:
43. It has been established that the offending vehicle was being
driven by respondent no.1 and that respondent no.2 is the owner of the
same and the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no. 3.
44. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/
Insurance Company has submitted that respondent no.1 has violated the
terms of the insurance policy as he was not having a valid driving
license at the time of the accident and thus, respondent no. 3 is not
liable to pay any amount. In this regard, he has relied upon the
statement of R3W1 Sh. Pawan Kumar, Junior Assistant, Transport
Department, Govt. of UP, who proved that the driver of the offending
vehicle i.e. respondent no. 1 was not holding a valid driving licence at
the time of the accident. His authority letter was proved as Ex. R3W1/1
and the report was proved as Ex. R3W1/2.
45. Therefore, it is proved that respondent no.1 did not have a
valid driving license at the time of the accident and thus, there is a
breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. However, since
the present proceedings are beneficial in nature and the insurance
policies are for the benefit of the third persons, respondent no. 3 is
directed to pay the award amount to the petitioner. Since, it was the duty
of the owner also to ensure that the driver possesses a valid driving
license, the recovery rights are granted to respondent no. 3 against Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:02:59
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 27 of 32
respondent nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally. Issue No. 2 is accordingly
decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF
46. The respondent no.3 – Oriental India Insurance Co Ltd. is
directed to deposit a sum of Rs. Rs. 75,053/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand
and Fifty Three only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing
of DAR i.e. 12.10.2021 till realization with the Civil Nazir of this
Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimant, failing which
the said respondent shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for
the period of delay beyond 30 days. Reliance placed on case titled as
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no.
22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
47. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted
as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No.
534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further
directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the
claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal
with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days
of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the
award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A digital copy of this award be forwarded to the parties
free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:03:03
+0530MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 28 of 32
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to
Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services
Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules,
2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on
18.08.2025 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation
amount within the time granted.
Further, Civil Nazir is directed to maintain the record in
Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment)
Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation
of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021
titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors.,
date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today
on this 16th Day of July, 2025 RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
SINGLA
Date:
2025.07.16
17:03:07
+0530(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 29 of 32
THE PARTICULARS AS PER FORM-XVII, CENTRAL MOTOR
VEHICLES (FIFTH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2022 (PL. SEE RULE
150A) ARE AS UNDER:-
1 Date of Accident 05.08.2021
2 Date of filing of Form-I –
First Accident Report 20.09.2021
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
Not attached
to the victim(s)
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
Not attached
from the Driver
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner Not attached
6 Date of filing of Form-V-
Particulars of the insurance Not attached
of the vehicle
7 Date of receipt of Form-
VIA and Form VIB from Not attached
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII –
06.10.2021
Detail Accident Report
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the 02.02.2022
Insurance Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company admitted his Yes.
report within 30 days of the
Digitally signed by
RUCHIKA RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA 17:03:14
Date: 2025.07.16
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 30 of 32
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the NA
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 16.07.2025
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhar Card and 12.10.2021
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence 16.07.2025
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
Digitally signed
by RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
Date:
SINGLA 2025.07.16
17:03:19
+0530
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 31 of 32
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award.
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
Yes. The Financial Statement of the claimant
of passing of the Award to
was recorded 08.07.2025.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
Digitally
signed by
RUCHIKA
RUCHIKA SINGLA
SINGLA Date:
2025.07.16
17:03:22
+0530
(RUCHIKA SINGLA)
PO, MACT-01, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
16.07.2025
MACT No.742/2021 Shahjahan Khatoon Vs. Amandeep Singh and Ors. Page 32 of 32
[ad_2]
Source link