Delhi District Court
Sonu vs Ramjan And Ors on 9 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN GUPTA,
PRESIDING OFFICER:MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-02,WEST,TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MACT no. 785/22
DLWT010062642022
1. Smt. Sapna
(wife of the deceased Sh. Sonu)
2. Tinku
(son of the deceased)
3. Neha
(daughter of the deceased)
4. Aditya
(son of the deceased)
5. Smt. Bimla (mother of the deceased)
W/o Sh. Om Pal
All R/o House no. 127, Gali no. 22,
Vipin Garden Extension,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Ramjan
S/o Sh. Bhawru
R/o D-167, J.J. Colony,
Shiv Vihar,
Vikas Nagar, Delhi
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited
At: 701, 7th Floor, Mercantile House,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi ...... Respondents
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:29:02 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 1 of 37
AND
MACT no. 217/23
DLWT010025662023
Sh. Sonu
S/o Sh. Yad Ram
R/o H. No. 205, Gali no.22,
Vipin Garden Extension,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi …… Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Ramjan
S/o Sh. Bhawru
R/o D-167, J.J. Colony,
Shiv Vihar, Delhi
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited
At: 701, 7th Floor, Mercantile House,
K.G. Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi …… Respondents
Date of Institution
(MACT no. 785/2022) : 04.07.2022
(MACT no. 217/2023) : 21.03.2023
Date of reserving order/judgment : 09.04.2025
Date of pronouncement : 09.04.2025
AWAR D
1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of both the
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:29:11 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 2 of 37
Detailed Accident Reports (DAR) filed by the IO in FIR no.
343/22 PS Ranhola, one is with regard to the fatal injuries
sustained by Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal (deceased in MACT No.
785/2022) and another with regard to the injuries sustained by
Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram (injured in MACT No. 217/23) in a
motor vehicular accident that took place on 25.03.2022 involving
a vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966.
2. According to the DAR filed by the IO, documents
annexed therewith as well as material available on record, on
25.03.2022, while the petitioner Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram
(Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23) alongwith his friend namely Sh.
Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) were
going on a motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCV1597, which was
being driven by deceased and at about 6:58 PM, when they
reached near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala Road, Vikas Nagar,
Delhi, suddenly, a vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing registration no.
RJ22RB9966 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’),
which was coming from the front side and being driven by its
driver in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner, hit against
the motorcycle of deceased and due to the forceful impact of the
hitting, both the riders of motorcycle alongwith motorcycle fell
down on the road and received injuries. It is further stated that
driver of the Tractor came towards them after parking the
offending vehicle at some distance and after seeing both the
injured, he fled away from the spot alongwith the offending
vehicle. It is further stated that deceased was rushed to Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi, wherein, he was medically
examined vide MLC no. 2532/22 dated 25.03.2022 and
thereafter, he was referred to LNJP Hospital, Delhi in the night of
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:29:19 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 3 of 37
25.03.2022, who succumbed to his injuries on 31.03.2022 and his
postmortem was conducted at Maulana Azad Medical College
and Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi vide PMR No. 163/2022
dated 31.03.2022. It is also transpired from the record that
injured Sonu S/o Yad Ram (Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23) was
medically examined in the Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New
Delhi vide Emergency Registration No. 76143 dated 26.03.2022 /
12:17:41 AM and undergone treatment for his injuries and the
Department of Dental Surgery opined nature of his injuries as
‘grievous’ from dental view. It is also stated that FIR No.
343/2022 PS Ranhola was registered on 26.03.2022 with regard
to the said accident upon the statement of the injured Sonu S/o
Yad Ram.
3. IO filed both the DARs giving details of respondent
No. 1 being the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle
and the respondent no. 2 being the Insurer of the offending
vehicle. DAR were also accompanied by other relevant
documents including final report u/s 173 Cr.PC; MLC and
postmortem report of deceased; site plan of the place of accident;
seizure memos of both the vehicles and documents of the
offending vehicle; mechanical inspection report of both the
vehicles; notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the
offending vehicle and its reply; arrest memo of accused
(respondent no.1 herein); statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC;
disclosure statement of accused (respondent no.1 herein) etc. It is
further stated that the deceased Sh. Sonu has left surviving his
five legal heirs i.e. his wife, two minor sons, one minor daughter
and his mother.
4. In both the cases, written statement was filed on
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:29:27 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 4 of 37
behalf of respondent no.1/driver-cum-owner, wherein it is stated
inter alia that accident was not caused by his vehicle; that he is
the driver and registered owner and having a valid license and
valid insurance; that on 26.03.2022, he was going towards
Ranhola Road, where police officials stopped him and implicated
him in a false case; that he was having a valid driving license and
he used to drive the vehicle in a very cautious manner; that the
DAR against the answering respondent is based on false and
fabricated story with malafide intention to extort the money from
him.
5. In both the cases, reply-cum-written statement filed
on behalf of the insurance company/respondent no.2, wherein it
is stated inter alia that Tractor no. RJ22RB9966 was insured vide
policy valid from 25.10.2021 to 24.10.2022 in the name of Sh.
Ramjan for agriculture and forestry purpose only and not to be
used for hire and reward, however, the liability of insurance
company is subject to terms and conditions of the policy; that the
DL NO. RJ-22/DLC/09/84028 was valid from 05.03.2009 to
04.01.2023 in the name of Sh. Ramjan S/o Sh. Bhanwru for
LMV (NT) only, whereas the driver was driving the tractor
alongwith trolley filled with ‘Malba’, which became a
commercial vehicle and therefore, driver should possess a license
for Transport Vehicle, however, the driver was not holding a
valid DL to drive the alleged offending vehicle; that the said
tractor was attached with a trolley at the time of alleged accident
and was being used for commercial purpose for hire and reward
and without a permit under Motor Vehicle Act, which is a
violation of policy terms and conditions and Motor Vehicle Act
and therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:29:35 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 5 of 37
compensation to the petitioners.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed in MACT No. 785/2022 by the Ld. Predecessor of
this Tribunal on 20.01.2023:-
1. Whether the Sonu (since deceased)
suffered injuries in a vehicular accident
that took place on 25.03.2022 at 6.58
PM near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki
Nala Road, Vikas Nagar, involving a
vehicle no. RJ-22 RB 9966 (offending
vehicle) being owned and driven by
respondent no.1/Ramjan in a rash and
negligent manner and insured with
respondent no.2/ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Limited?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed in MACT No. 217/23 by the Ld. Predecessor of this
Tribunal on 27.09.2023:-
1. Whether the injured Sonu suffered
injuries in a vehicular accident that took
place on 25.03.2022 at about 6.58 PM
near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala
Road, Vikas Nagar, involving a vehicle
no. RJ-22 RB 9966 (offending vehicle)
being owned and driven by respondent
no.1/Ramjan and insured with
respondent no.2/ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Limited?
OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3. Relief.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:29:44 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 6 of 37
13.10.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, both the
above-mentioned matters were consolidated and evidence was
directed to be recorded in case MACT No. 785/22.
9. In order to prove their case, petitioners got
examined two witnesses. PW1 is Smt. Sapna (wife of deceased).
Another witness is PW2 / injured Sh. Sonu S/o Yad Ram
(Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23).
10. In respondent evidence, respondent no. 1 examined
himself as R1W1. Respondent no.2/Insurance Company also got
examined one witness viz. R2W1 Ms. Diksha Manhas, Legal
Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
11. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel
for petitioner as well as Ld. Counsels for respondents. I have
gone through the record carefully and my issue wise findings
are as under :
Issue No.1 (In both the cases).
12. It is the settled proposition of law that an action
founded on the principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine qua non.
However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in
criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while
dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict
rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by
the Claims Tribunal. Reference may be made to the judgments
titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani &
Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012, Bimla
Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation &
Others (2009) 13 SC 530, Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:29:52 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 7 of 37
2011 (1) SCR 1096 & Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303.
13. PW-1 Smt. Sapna tendered her affidavit in evidence
which is Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. (i) Copy
of her Aadhar Card Ex.PW1/1 (OSR); (ii) Copy of her PAN Card
Ex.PW1/2 (OSR); (iii) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.2
Ex.PW1/3 (OSR); (iv) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.3
Ex.PW1/4 (OSR); (v) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.4
Ex.PW1/5 (OSR); (vi) Copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner no.5
Ex.PW1/6 (OSR); (vii) Copy of PAN Card of petitioner
no.5/Bimla Ex.PW1/7 (OSR); (viii) Copy of driving license of
deceased Sonu Ex.PW1/8 (OSR) and (ix) DAR Ex.PW1/9. In her
cross examination by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Co., she
admitted that she is not an eye-witness to this accident.
14. For the purpose of this issue, the testimony of
injured /PW-2 Sonu (Petitioner in MACT no. 217/23) is very
relevant. He filed an affidavit in evidence, which is Ex.PW2/A,
wherein he deposed inter alia that on the date of accident i.e.
25.03.2022 at about 6.30 pm, he was going to Vikas Nagar from
Vipin Garden alongwith his friend deceased Sonu on his
motorcycle bearing no. DL4SCV1597, which was driven by
deceased Sonu and he was pillion rider and when they reached
near Shiv Vihar Police Chauki Nala Road, suddenly one Tractor
Trolley bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966, coming in high
speed, rashly, negligently, without blowing horn and in
contravention of traffic rules, which was being driven by
respondent no.1 and came to front side, hit his motorcycle and
due to the forceful impact of hitting, they fell down on the road
and suffered multiple injuries. He has relied upon the documents:
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:30:01 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 8 of 37
(i) Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PW2/1 (OSR); (ii) Copy of his
PAN Card Ex.PW2/2 (OSR); (iii) Copy of his medical paper
Ex.PW2/3; (iv) Copy of chargesheet Ex.PW2/4 and (v) Copy of
complete DAR Ex.PW2/5 (Colly).
15. In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel
for the respondent no.2, he stated inter alia that the tractor was
attached with a trolley and trolley was filled with stones
(Patthar); that the road where the accident took place was about
20-25 feet wide; that there was no traffic on the road; that he had
seen the tractor coming at a distance of about 20-30 feet; that
though they were going on the side of the road, but tractor trolley
came at a fast speed and caused the accident. He denied to the
suggestion that deceased was driving the motorcycle at a fast
speed and struck the tractor on its front or that accident was
caused due to the rash and negligent driving of deceased Sonu or
that he was deposing falsely. In his cross examination done by
the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, he denied to the suggestion
that he was riding the bike and fall from bike of his own or that
deceased Sonu got injured by any other vehicle and he framed
the false story to the police. He also stated that he was without
helmet. He further stated that he identified the offending vehicle
on the next day of incident in the police station at about 5:00 PM.
He further stated that he did not remember for how long he was
conscious. He further denied to the suggestion that he does not
know anything about the accident and offending vehicle or that
he had implicated the offending vehicle at the instance of police
or that offending vehicle was not present at the place of incident.
16. It is duly established from the material available on
record including the testimony of the PW2 Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:30:08 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 9 of 37
Ram that PW2 Sonu accompanied deceased on his motorcycle,
which was being driven by the deceased at the time of accident in
question. The same also remained undisputed on the part of the
respondents. Presence of PW-2/injured Sonu at the spot
alongwith the deceased has been duly established. PW2 Sonu has
categorically deposed about the mode and manner of the accident
in question. He has deposed to the effect that on 25.03.2022 at
about 6:30 PM, he alongwith his friend namely Sonu were going
on his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SCV1597, which
was driven by the deceased and he was the pillion rider and when
they reached near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki Nala Road,
suddenly offending vehicle coming at high speed and rashly and
negligently, being driven by respondent no. 1, hit against their
motorcycle as a result of which, both of them fell down on the
road and suffered multiple injuries. In his cross examination done
by Ld. Counsel for Insurance Co., he has stated that the tractor
was attached with a trolley, which was filled with stones. He also
deposed that tractor trolley came at a fast speed and caused the
accident. From the perusal of the testimony of injured / eye-
witness PW2 Sh. Sonu, it is clear that there is nothing material
has been elicited to disbelieve the version of accident as given by
him. Plea of the respondents that it was deceased who was
negligent due to which accident caused, has not been
substantiated by any evidence. There is no cogent evidence
available on record to hold that accident had either taken place
due to the negligence or contributory negligence on the part of
deceased or injured. Rather, evidence of PW-2 remained
consistent on the aspect of accident, having been caused by rash
and negligent driving of respondent no.1. It is evident from the
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:30:15 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 10 of 37
testimony of PW-2 that respondents could not impeach his
testimony through litmus test of cross-examination. Said witness
is found to have successfully withstood the test of cross-
examination. PW-2 himself is the injured having sustained
injuries due to the accident in question. There is no reason as to
why he would depose falsely against respondent no. 1. It is well
settled that minor contradictions cannot be a ground to discredit a
witness’s testimony. The testimony of PW-2 remained
unimpeachable on the aspect of accident in question. There is no
possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false
involvement of offending vehicle at the instance of petitioner
herein.
17. Respondent no. 1 got himself examined and filed his
affidavit in evidence Ex.R1W1/A, wherein he deposed on the
lines of his reply to the DAR filed by him. He has relied upon the
documents i.e. (i) Copy of his driving license Ex.RW1/1(OSR);
(ii) Copy of registration certificate of his vehicle; (iii) Copy of
insurance policy and (iv) Copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.RW1/4
(OSR). In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, he deposed that he had not lodged any complaint
against the false implication of his vehicle in the present case to
the higher authority. He admitted that a criminal case is pending
against him in the Court and on the day of accident, he was going
from Vikas Nagar to Ranhola. He further stated that the vehicle
was got released by him on Superdari from the Court and the
tractor was not attached with any trolley. He denied to the
suggestion that the accident took place due to his own negligence
involving the offending vehicle or that the accident took place
due to his own negligence, that is why, he had not made a
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:30:23 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 11 of 37
complaint to the higher authority. He further denied that the
police arrested him in this case or that he is on bail in this case.
In his cross examination done by the Ld. Counsel for the
respondent no. 2, he admitted that the police recorded his
statement Ex. R2W1/P1 and it bears his signature at point A. He
admitted that Ex. R2W1/1 is the policy of the vehicle involved in
the present case. He further deposed that he had not made any
complaint to the police officials that his tractor was not attached
with a trolley. He denied that he is in collusion with the
petitioner and making a wrong statement.
18. In his evidence, respondent no. 1 got himself
examined and denied the involvement of his vehicle in the
accident and also asserted his false implication in the present
case. However, admittedly, he has not lodged any complaint
against the false implication to the higher authorities.
Interestingly, he has admitted his statement recorded by the
police, which is Ex. R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at point A.
In the said admitted statement Ex. R2W1/P1 of the respondent
no. 1 Ramjan, which was recorded by the police, he has inter
alia stated that on 25.03.2022 at about 6:20 PM, he was going in
his tractor trolley filled with ‘Malba’ from Shiv Vihar towards
Police Chowki and his tractor caused an accident with a
motorcycle no. DL4SCV-1597 in which two boys were riding
and he was driving the tractor trolley in fast speed and in rash
and negligent manner. The said statement Ex. R2W1/P1, which
is admittedly made by the respondent no. 1 before the police,
itself shows the involvement of the offending vehicle in causing
the accident, which was driven by the respondent no. 1 himself
at the time of accident and thereby, it also caused dent to the
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:30:30 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 12 of 37
story projected by him to avoid his liability. There is sufficient
evidence available on record showing the complicity of the
respondent no. 1 in causing the accident while driving the
offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Hence, the self-
serving statement of respondent no. 1 made through his affidavit
in evidence does not offer him any help much less to absolve him
of his culpability in causing the accident in question.
19. Moreover, it is an undisputed fact that FIR No.
343/22 PS Ranhola was registered with regard to accident in
question. Copy of said FIR (which is part of final report U/s 173
CrPC filed by the petitioner) would show that same was
registered on 26.03.2022. Thus, FIR is shown to have been
registered promptly and without any delay. Hence, there is no
possibility of false implication of respondent no. 1 and/or false
involvement of aforesaid vehicle bearing No. RJ-22RB 9966 at
the instance of petitioners herein.
20. Furthermore, DAR filed by the IO also include the
final report u/s 173 Cr.PC filed by IO in FIR No. 343/22 (supra);
MLC and postmortem report of deceased; site plan of the place
of accident; seizure memos of both the vehicles and documents
of the offending vehicle; mechanical inspection report of both the
vehicles; notice u/s 133 M.V. Act given to the owner of the
offending vehicle and its reply; arrest memo of accused
(respondent no.1 herein); statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC;
disclosure statement of accused (respondent no.1 herein) etc.
Respondent no. 1 namely Ramjan (accused in State case) has
been charge-sheeted (which is part of copies of criminal case
available on record) for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC
by the investigating agency after arriving at the conclusion on the
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:30:38 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 13 of 37
basis of investigation carried out by it that the accident in
question had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Same also
corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-2 to the extent of rash
and negligent driving of respondent no. 1. The investigations
were duly carried out which revealed not only the involvement of
the vehicle, but also that it was the offending vehicle which was
being driven in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the
accident.
21. Moreover, as per the postmortem report of deceased
Sonu vide P.M. Report No. 163/2022 dated 31.03.2022 filed by
the IO alongwith present DAR, the opinion therein is given as
“Death in this case occurred as a result of brain damage
consequent upon blunt force trauma to head. All injuries are
antemortem in nature, caused by blunt force i.e. impact against
hard and blunt objects or surfaces, consistent with having been
caused in a road traffic incident and being about 4-6 days old in
duration prior to death.” Said document has not been disputed
from the side of the respondents and corroborates the ocular
testimony of PW-2 as discussed above.
22. Furthermore, in the given facts and circumstances of
the present case, the rashness and negligence of the driver
(respondent no.1) would also be assumed by virtue of res ipsa
loquitur. The very factum that the respondent no. 1 while driving
offending vehicle had hit against the motorcycle and caused the
death of the driver of the motorcycle and grievous injuries to its
pillion rider, itself shows that offending vehicle was being driven
by the respondent no. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, which
became out of his control and he failed to apply its brakes at the
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:30:46 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 14 of 37
right time and thereby caused the accident. There was an implicit
duty on the respondent no.1 to see that his driving did not
endanger the life of any other user of the road. He has failed
to exercise the caution incumbent upon him and has clearly
neglected his duty of circumspection.
23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the
evidence which has come on record, it is held that the petitioners
have been able to prove on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities that deceased Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal sustained fatal
injuries and another petitioner namely Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram
sustained grievous injuries in road accident which took place on
25.03.2022 at about 6.58 PM near Shiv Vihar Police Chowki
Nala Road, Vikas Nagar, Delhi due to rash and negligent driving
of offending vehicle by the respondent no. 1. Accordingly issue
no.1 stands decided in favour of petitioners and against the
respondents.
Issue No.2
24. In view of the finding on issue no.1, petitioners are
entitled to get compensation, however, the quantum of
compensation still needs to be adjudicated. Section 168 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 enjoins upon the claim Tribunal to hold an
inquiry into the claim to make an award determining the amount
of compensation, which appears to be just and reasonable. As
per settled law, compensation is not expected to be windfall or a
bonanza nor it should be pittance. A man is not compensated for
the physical injury, he is compensated for the loss which he
suffers as a result of that injury (Baker v. Willoughby (1970) Ac
467 at page 492 per Lord Reid).
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 785/22
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:31:02 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 15 of 37
(deceased Sh. Sonu S/o Sh. Om Pal)
Age of deceased :
25. The petitioner no.1/PW-1 Smt. Sapna has deposed
that deceased was of 29 years of age at the time of accident. She
has filed and relied upon driving license of deceased Sh. Sonu,
copy of which is Ex.PW1/8 and it shows the date of birth of
deceased Sonu was 29.10.1992. The same remained undisputed
on the part of respondents. Date of accident is 25.03.2022. As
such, this fact stands concluded that age of the deceased was
around 29 years 4 months at the time of accident.
Assessment of Income of deceased :
26. Petitioner/PW-1 Smt. Sapna (wife of deceased) has
deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW1/A) that
deceased was a professional driver and earning Rs.20,000/-
approximately per month. In her cross examination, she stated
that deceased was working as a driver, who used to drive a
transport (four-wheeler) vehicle. She further stated that she had
not filed any document to show that her husband was working as
a driver. She further stated that she has filed the driving license
of her husband on record. She also stated that she had not filed
any document to show the income of her husband. She denied to
the suggestion that her deceased husband was not working
anywhere and not earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
27. Ld. Counsel for petitioners argued that deceased was
a professional driver and his driving license Ex.PW1/8 has
already been placed on record and from the deposition of PW1, it
becomes clear that deceased was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-
approximately per month. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent
no. 2 / Insurance Co. has vehemently argued that there is no
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:31:28 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 16 of 37
cogent evidence available on record to prove the alleged vocation
and monthly income of deceased and petitioners have failed to
establish the same.
28. PW1 has deposed that her deceased husband was a
professional driver and she has filed on record driving license of
her deceased husband Sonu, which is Ex.PW1/8, which shows
that it was valid for driving of ‘LMV’ and ‘MCWG’ class of
vehicles (NT) upto 27.08.2039. As per the documents filed on
record by the PW1 (wife of deceased), it becomes clear that they
are resident of Delhi and deceased was also residing in Delhi at
the time of accident. Admittedly, there is no document placed on
record by the petitioners to establish the alleged monthly income
of deceased. There is no other witness got examined by the
petitioners in support thereof. Thus, for want of cogent and
definite evidence being led by the petitioners with regard to the
monthly income of the deceased, however, taking note of the
driving skills of the deceased vide his driving license Ex.PW1/8,
this Tribunal assesses the income of deceased to be at parity with
minimum wages of skilled person in the State of Delhi which at
the time of accident i.e. 25.03.2022 were Rs. 19,473/- per month.
Application of Multiplier:
29. As held above, deceased was around 29 years 4
months of age at the time of accident. Hence, the multiplier of 17
would be applicable against the age bracket of 26 years to 30
years to determine the compensation, in view of pronouncement
made by the Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs.
DTC” 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
30. On the day of accident, deceased was aged about 29
years 4 months. Having considered the facts and circumstances
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:31:35 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 17 of 37
of the present matter, future prospects @ 40% has to be awarded
in favour of petitioners in view of pronouncement made by the
Apex Court in the case titled as “National Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.” Civil Appeal No. 6961/2015
decided on 31.10.2017, as well as in view of decision of Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in appeal bearing MAC APP No. 798/2011
titled as “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pooja & Ors“, decided on 02.11.17.
Deduction towards Personal and Living Expenses:
31. After choosing the age, multiplier and income of the
deceased, necessary deductions have to be made out of the
income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. As per the
DAR as well as the affidavit of petitioner / PW1, there are five
legal representatives / dependents of deceased i.e. his wife
(petitioner no. 1), three children (petitioner no. 2 to 4) and his
mother (petitioner no.5). Since, the deceased was survived by
five dependents, one-fourth (1/4th) of the income of the deceased
is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, as
held in the case titled as “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation“, 2009 ACJ 1298 SC.
32. Thus, considering the aforementioned factors, the
compensation for the loss of dependency is calculated as under:
S. No. Head Amount 1. Monthly income of deceased (A) Rs. 19,473/- 2. Add future prospect (B) @ 40% Rs. 7,789.2/-
3. Less 1/4th towards personal and Rs. 6,815.55/-
living expenses of the deceased (C)
4. Monthly loss of dependency (A+B)- Rs. 20,446.65/-
C=D
5. Annual loss of dependency (Dx12) Rs. 2,45,359.8/-
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:31:43 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 18 of 37
6. Multiplier (E) 17
7. Total loss of dependency Rs. 41,71,116.6/-
(Dx12xE=F)
33. Thus, the total of loss of dependency would come
out to Rs. 41,71,117/- (rounded off). Hence, a sum of Rs.
41,71,117/- (Rupees Forty One Lacs Seventy One Thousand One
Hundred and Seventeen Only Only) is awarded under this head
in favour of the petitioners.
Non-Pecuniary Damages:
34. In case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), it has been held that
reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-,
Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively and the aforesaid
amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years. Therefore, a compensation of Rs. 48,000/-, Rs. 18,000/-
and Rs.18,000/- respectively on account of loss of consortium,
loss of estate and funeral expenses is required to be granted.
Further, in view of recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder
Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors., Civil Appeal no. 2705 of 2020,
decided on 30.06.2020, loss of consortium has to be fixed for
each of the legal representatives. Since, the deceased has left
surviving his five legal representatives, therefore, the
petitioners/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,76,000/-
(48,000 X 5 + 18,000 + 18,000) under this head.
35. Considering the aforementioned factors, the total
compensation is calculated as under:
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTAGUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:31:51 +0530MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 19 of 37
S. No. Head Amount Awarded
1. Total loss of dependency Rs. 41,71,117/-
2. Compensation for loss of consortium Rs. 2,40,000/-
(48,000 X 5)
3. Compensation for loss of estate (H) Rs.18,000/-
4. Compensation for funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-
(I)
Total compensation Rs. 44,47,117/-
36. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the
petitioners (in MACT No. 785/22) are entitled comes to
Rs.44,47,117/- (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Forty Seven Thousand
One Hundred and Seventeen Only).
COMPENSATION IN MACT NO. 217/23
(Injured Sonu S/o Sh. Yad Ram)
Medical Expenses:
37. PW2 Sh. Sonu i.e. the injured himself, has inter alia
deposed in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A that after
the accident, he was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital,
where he was medically examined vide Emergency Registration
No. 76143 dated 26.03.2022/12:17:41 AM; that he suffered
injuries all over his body and his teeth were also broken; that he
has incurred medical and other expenses from 25.03.2022 to
01.12.2023, amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- approximately. In his
cross examination, he stated that he has not placed on record any
bill of his treatment. He denied to the suggestion that he had not
spent Rs.1,00,000/- or any other amount on his treatment. He
further stated that he was treated in government hospital and
thereafter, he got treated himself privately. He further stated that
he had not placed any document of his treatment taken privately.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:31:57 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 20 of 37
He denied that he had not taken any treatment from any private
doctor and that is why, he had not placed any such document on
record.
38. PW2 injured Sonu has deposed in his cross
examination that he was treated in government hospital and
thereafter, he took the private treatment. However, admittedly, he
has not placed on record any medical bill pertaining to his
medical treatment. In the absence of any such medical bill, being
placed and proved on record, by the PW2 / injured Sonu, no
amount can be awarded to him under this head.
Loss of Income on account of accident
39. PW2/Sonu has deposed inter alia in his evidence by
way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A that he was working as a driver of
battery rickshaw and earning Rs.18,000/- per month
approximately. In his cross examination, he stated that he is not
maintaining any account of his earning; that he is not an income
tax payee and he does not have any driving license. He denied to
the suggestion that he was unemployed.
40. Ld. Counsel for respondents have vehemently
argued that petitioner has not led any cogent evidence qua his
alleged vocation and monthly income and thereby, he has failed
to prove the same. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner submits
that petitioner has clearly deposed in his affidavit that he was
working as battery rickshaw driver and earning Rs.18,000/- per
month.
41. Admittedly, PW2 / injured Sonu was not having any
driving license. There is no document placed and proved on
record by the petitioner to prove his alleged monthly income.
There is no other witness got examined by the petitioner in
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:32:05 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 21 of 37
support thereof. As per Aadhar Card, the petitioner is a resident
of Delhi. Thus, for want of cogent and definite evidence being
led by petitioner with regard to his actual monthly income, this
Tribunal assesses the income of the injured to be at parity with
minimum wages of unskilled person in the State of Delhi which
at the time of accident i.e. 25.03.2022 was Rs.16,064/- per
month.
42. PW2 / injured Sonu has deposed in his affidavit that
after the accident, he was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhayay
Hospital, where he was medically examined vide Emergency
Registration No. 76143 dated 26.03.2022 / 12:17:41 AM; that he
suffered injuries all over his body and his teeth were also broken
and he incurred medical and other expenses amounting to
Rs.1,00,000/- approximately from 25.03.2022 to 01.12.2023.
However, admittedly, he has not placed on record his medical
and other expenses bills on record. He has also not placed such
documents on record, which would show that he was under
treatment for the above-mentioned period. As per his medical
document of Department of Dental Surgery, which is Ex.PW2/3,
nature of his injury from dental view is ‘grievous’. The same
remained undisputed on the part of the respondents. Considering
the totality of circumstances as well as nature of injuries suffered
by him and material placed on record, this Tribunal is of
considered view that he would not have been able to work for a
period of two months. Thus, an amount of Rs. 32,128/- (Rs.
16,064/- x 2) is granted to the petitioner on account of loss of
income due to the accident in question.
Special Diet, Conveyance Charges & Attendant Charges
43. Petitioner (PW2) in his evidence by way of affidavit
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:32:11 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 22 of 37
deposed that his medical and other expenses are amounting to
Rs.1,00,000/- approximately from 25.03.2022 to 01.12.2023. Ld.
Counsel for respondents have argued that there is no
documentary evidence available on record to substantiate the
claim of the petitioner qua the alleged expenses under this head.
Admittedly, there is no document placed and proved on record by
the petitioner in support of his plea for incurring expenses under
this head, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that he had
sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Thus, he would have
taken special rich protein diet for his speedy recovery and would
have also incurred some amount towards conveyance charges
while commuting to the concerned hospital as OPD patient for
his regular checkup and follow up during the period of his
medical treatment. He would also have been definitely helped by
some person either outsider or from his family, to perform his
daily activities as also while visiting the hospital during the
course of his medical treatment. In the absence of any such
documentary proof, this Tribunal while taking into consideration
nature of injuries suffered by petitioner as well as surrounding
circumstances, finds it appropriate to grant a notional sum of
Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance charges; a sum of Rs.15,000/-
towards special diet and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant
charges to the petitioner.
Pain and Suffering
44. Petitioner/Injured has deposed that due to this
accident he suffered financial, emotional, mental pain and
suffering. As per Ex.PW2/3, the nature of injuries of the injured
Sonu is opined as grievous by the Department of Dental Surgery,
which remained uncontroverted on the part of the respondents.
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:32:18 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 23 of 37
Thus, he would have undergone physical sufferings and mental
shock on account of the accident in question. Keeping in view of
the totality of facts and circumstances including the nature of
injuries, duration of his treatment and surrounding circumstances,
I hereby award a notional sum of Rs.25,000/-towards pain and
sufferings to the petitioner.
45. Thus, the compensation awarded to the petitioner
Pawan Yadav is summarized as under:-
S Heads of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Medical expenses Nil
2 Loss of income Rs. 32,128/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/-
4. Conveyance Rs. 10,000/-
5. Special diet Rs. 15,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 1,02,128/-
46. Thus, the total compensation amount to which the
petitioner Sonu is entitled comes to Rs. 1,02,128/- (Rupees One
Lac Two Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight Only).
INTEREST ON AWARD (in both the cases)
47. Petitioners shall also be entitled to interest at the rate
of 8% per annum on the award amount from the date of filing of
the DAR i.e. 04.07.2022 (in MACT No. 785/22) and 21.03.2023
(in MACT No. 217/23) respectively till realization.
LIABILITY (in both the cases)
48. Now the question arises as to which of the
respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount. Respondent
no. 2 / insurance company has sought to avoid its liability to pay
the compensation amount on the ground that driving license of
the respondent no. 1 was valid from 05.03.2009 to 04.01.2023 for
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:32:25 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 24 of 37
LMV (NT) only, whereas, he was driving the tractor alongwith
trolley filled with ‘Malba’, which was a commercial vehicle, and
therefore, he was not having driving license to drive the
offending vehicle. It is further argued that the said tractor was
attached with a trolley at the time of alleged accident, which was
used for commercial purpose for hire and reward without a
permit under Motor Vehicle Act, which is a violation of policy
terms and conditions and Motor Vehicle Act and, therefore,
insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation amount
to the petitioners.
49. In order to substantiate the said plea, insurance
company/respondent no.2 has examined Ms. Diksha Manhas,
Legal Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Limited as R2W1, who tendered her affidavit in evidence which
is Ex.R2W1/A, wherein she deposed inter alia that vehicle
bearing No. RJ22-RB9966 was insured in the name of Sh.
Ramzan vide insurance policy valid for the period of 25.10.2021
to 24.10.2022; that a notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC was issued
through their advocate to the owner and driver to produce the
original policy, RC, Fitness and DL of driver, which they failed
to produce. She further deposed that owner of vehicle was using
the alleged offending vehicle for carrying Malba i.e. construction
material, whereas, the offending vehicle was insured for
agriculture purpose and, therefore, driver-cum-owner has
committed breach of terms and conditions of policy and Motor
Vehicles Act and insurance company is not liable to pay any
compensation to the petitioners. Copy of the insurance policy is
Ex.R2W1/1; (ii) Copy of notice U/o 12 Rule 8 CPC is
Ex.R2W1/2 and its postal receipt Ex.R2W1/3. In her cross
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:32:31 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 25 of 37
examination, she stated that the said fact regarding the ‘Malba’
carried in the offending vehicle is mentioned in Fard-Inksaf in
DAR and the same is Ex.R2W1/P1. She denied of deposing
falsely.
50. In his evidence, respondent no. 1 got himself
examined and filed affidavit in evidence Ex.R1W1/A. He relied
upon the documents i.e. (i) his driving license Ex.R1W1/1; (ii)
copy of RC of his vehicle; (iii) copy of insurance policy; and (iv)
copy of his Aadhar Card Ex. R1W1/4. In his cross examination
by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, he admitted that police
recorded his statement as Ex.R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at
point A. He further stated that he had not made any complaint to
the police officials that his tractor was not attached with a trolley.
51. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2/ insurance
company has vehemently argued that tractor of respondent no.1
was insured with the insurance company for agriculture and
forestry purpose only and not for the purpose to be used for hire
and reward; that seizure memo of the offending vehicle filed by
the IO alongwith the DAR shows that the tractor trolley which
was produced by its owner before the police was seized by the IO
during the course of investigation; that respondent no. 1 in his
cross examination has admitted that police recorded his statement
Ex.R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at point A and the said
admitted statement of the respondent no. 1 clearly establish that
on 25.03.2022 at about 6:20 PM, respondent no. 1 was going in
his tractor trolley filled with ‘Malba’ from Shiv Vihar towards
police chowki, which caused an accident with a motorcycle no.
DL4SCV1597. It is further argued that it is established on record
that a trolley was attached with the insured tractor by the
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:32:38 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 26 of 37
respondent no. 1, which was filled with ‘Malba’ at the time of
accident and, therefore, the insured tractor was being used for
commercial purposes, without having a permit under Motor
Vehicle Act and also in violation of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
52. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 has
argued that respondent no. 2 / Insurance Co. has failed to
establish that respondent no. 1 was carrying anything in his
tractor or it was being used for any commercial purpose; that
tractor of respondent no. 1 was duly insured with respondent no.
2 / Insurance Co. and it was not being used for any purpose in
violation of any terms and conditions of the insurance policy
and/or Motor Vehicle Act and the plea of the insurance company
is not sustainable.
53. So far as the plea of the respondent no. 2 / insurance
company that respondent no. 1 was not having valid driving
license to drive the offending vehicle is concerned, the same is
not found sustainable. Respondent no. 1 Ramjan has filed copy
of his driving license which is Ex.R1W1/1. IO alongwith DAR
has also filed Extracts of the driving license of the respondent no.
1 under signature of the official, Transport Department, Pali,
Rajasthan, which shows that driving license of respondent no. 1
Ramjan was valid to drive the ‘LMV’ and ‘MCWG’ class of
vehicle (NT) from 05.03.2009 to 04.01.2023. The said document
remained undisputed on the part of respondent no.2/insurance
company. There is no evidence brought on record by the
respondent no. 2 to show that the driving license of the
respondent no. 1 Ramjan was not valid for the purpose of driving
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:32:45 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 27 of 37
of vehicle in question. IO has also filed copy of the vehicle
(offending vehicle) details verified by the Rajasthan Transport
Department Authority, Pali-RTO, which shows class of vehicle as
‘Agriculture Tractor (LMV)’ and its unladen weight is 1880 Kg
and laden weight 2260 Kg. In view of the same, it is clear that
the offending vehicle falls under the category of light motor
vehicle (LMV) and the respondent no. 1/driver of the offending
vehicle was not required to obtain a separate endorsement on his
driving license to drive transport vehicle of such class. It is well
settled that if a driver is holding license to drive light motor
vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any
endorsement to that effect. (In this regard, reliance is placed on
the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ” Mukund
Devangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2017(7) Scale
731 “). As such, the respondent no.2 has failed to prove on record
that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective
driving license to drive the vehicle in question at the time of
accident.
54. Now, coming to another limb of arguments on
behalf of respondent no. 2/insurance company, whereby it sought
to avoid its liability to pay the compensation amount on the
ground that the offending vehicle i.e. tractor was attached with a
trolley at the time of accident, which was used for commercial
purpose for hire and reward without a permit under Motor
Vehicle Act and also in violation of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy.
55. In the case titled “Dhondubai Vs. Hanmantappa
Bandappa Gandigude since deceased through his LRs & Ors.,
2023 LiveLaw (SC) 725″, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:32:53 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 28 of 37
Court that in a matter of the present nature, the law is well settled
that when a tractor and trailer are involved, both the tractor as
well as the trailer are required to be insured.
56. In the case titled “M/s Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd.
Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3428″ , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
“Section 2 (28) is a comprehensive
definition of the words “motor vehicle”. Although, a
“trailer” is separately defined under section 2 (46) to
mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by
motor vehicle, it is still included into the definition of
the words “motor vehicle” under section 2 (28).
Similarly, the word “tractor” is defined in section 2
(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself
constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words
“motor vehicle” have been defined in the
comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore,
we have to read the words “motor vehicle” in the
broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act
has been enacted in order to keep control over motor
vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A combined reading
of the aforestated definitions under section 2,
reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of
“motor vehicle” includes any mechanically propelled
vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the
source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore,
even though a trailer is drawn by a motor vehicle, it
by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer
would constitute a “goods carriage” under section 2
(14) and consequently, a “transport vehicle” under
section 2 (47). The test to be applied in such a case is
whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for
transporting goods from one place to another. When a
vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt
for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it
is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the
above test, we are of the view that the tractor trailer
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTAGUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:33:00 +0530MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 29 of 37
in the present case falls under section 2 (14) as a
“goods carriage” and consequently, it falls under the
definition of “transport vehicle” under Section 2 (47)
of the M.V. Act 1988″.
57. In the present case, injured / PW2 Sonu has deposed
in his affidavit Ex.PW2/A regarding the causing of accident by
the tractor trolley bearing registration no. RJ22RB9966. In his
cross examination by Ld. Counsel for insurance company, he
stated that at the time of accident, tractor was attached with a
trolley which was filled with stones. Further, seizure memo filed
by the IO alongwith DAR shows the seizure of the tractor no.
RJ22RB9966 and trolley, which was produced by its owner
(respondent no. 1). Furthermore, respondent no. 1 has admitted in
his cross examination that police recorded his statement, which is
Ex.R2W1/P1 bearing his signature at point A and the said
admitted statement of the respondent no. 1, clearly established
that on 25.03.2022 at about 6:20 PM, respondent no. 1 was going
in his tractor trolley filled with ‘Malba’ from Shiv Vihar towards
Police Chowki, which caused an accident with a motorcycle no.
DL4SCV1597. Thus, it is established on record that at the time of
accident, a trolley was attached with the tractor bearing
registration no. RJ22RB9966 and it was carrying some ‘Malba’
and thereby, being used for commercial purpose. As per the
insurance policy of tractor in question, it was issued for use of
vehicle for agriculture and forestry purpose only and not to be
used for hire and reward. Further, the trolley which was attached
with the tractor of the respondent no. 1 was not insured with the
respondent no. 2 / insurance company at the time of accident.
58. It is well settled that a tractor by itself is not a
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:33:07 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 30 of 37
transport vehicle, however, if a trailer is attached to the tractor
and if the trailer is meant for carrying goods, the tractor and
trailer taken together will become a “transport vehicle” under
Section 2 (47) of the M.V. Act being a goods carriage. As per the
Section 66 (1) of M.V. Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use
or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any
public place, whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any
passengers or goods, save in accordance with the conditions of a
permit granted by a Regional or State Transport Authority.
59. In the present case also, the tractor trolly used by the
respondent no. 1 would constitute a “goods carriage” and
consequently, a “transport vehicle” under Section 2 of the M.V.
Act and thus, it required a permit U/s 66 of the M.V. Act and has
to be charged separate premium for ‘Trolley’. However, there is
no such permit of the aforesaid transport vehicle filed on record
by the respondent no. 1 nor the trolley attached with the tractor
was insured.
60. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it becomes clear
that respondent no. 1 has committed breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and thus, insurance company
is entitled to recovery rights against the respondent no. 1 (driver
as well as owner). In such circumstances, this Tribunal holds that
the amount of compensation though would be payable by
respondent no.2/insurance company but with recovery rights as
against respondent no. 1 Ramjan. Issue no. 2 is decided
accordingly.
RELIEF (in MACT No. 785/22)
61. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this
Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 44,47,117/- (Rupees
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:33:14 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 31 of 37
Forty Four Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand One Hundred and
Seventeen Only) (including interim award amount, if any)
alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum in favour of
petitioners and against the respondents w.e.f. date of filing of
DAR i.e. 04.07.2022 till realization. The respondent
no.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount
with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the MACT
Account of this Tribunal having Account no. 40714429271, IFSC
Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, within 30 days
from today. The respondent no. 2 is also directed to give notice
regarding deposit of the said amount to the petitioners.
RELIEF (in MACT No. 217/23)
62. In view of my finding on issues no. 1 and 2, this
Tribunal awards a compensation of Rs. 1,02,128/- (Rupees One
Lac Two Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Eight Only)
(including interim award amount, if any) alongwith interest at the
rate of 8% per annum in favour of petitioner Sonu and against the
respondents from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 21.03.2023 till
realization. The respondent no.2/insurance company is directed
to deposit the award amount with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi in the MACT Account of this Tribunal having
Account no. 40714429271, IFSC Code. SBIN0000726 Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi, within 30 days from today. The respondent no. 2 is
also directed to give notice regarding deposit of the said amount
to the petitioner.
Apportionment (in MACT No. 785/22)
63. Statements of petitioners in terms of Clause 29
MCTAP were recorded on 16.08.2024 and considering the
totality of circumstances of the case, share of petitioners in the
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:33:22 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 32 of 37
award amount shall be as under:-
S. No. Name Relationship with Share in the
deceased award amount
1. Sapna Wife 45%
2. Tinku Son 15%
3. Neha Daughter 15%
4. Aditya Son 15%
5. Bimla Mother 10%
Disbursement of Award Amount (in MACT No. 785/22)
64. In view of the aforesaid, it is hereby ordered that out
of total compensation amount, the petitioner no. 1 namely Smt.
Sapna shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 20,01,203/-
(Rupees Twenty Lacs One Thousand Two Hundred and Three
Only) alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 2
namely Tinku shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/-
(Rupees Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only)
alongwith proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 3 namely
Neha shall be entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/- (Rupees
Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith
proportionate interest; the petitioner no. 4 namely Aditya shall be
entitled to share amount of Rs. 6,67,067/- (Rupees Six Lacs Sixty
Seven Thousand and Sixty Seven Only) alongwith proportionate
interest and the petitioner no. 5 namely Smt. Bimla shall be
entitled to share amount of Rs. 4,44,711/- (Rupees Four Lacs
Forty Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven Only)
alongwith proportionate interest.
65. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Sapna,
a sum of Rs. 3,01,203/- (Rupees Three Lacs One Thousand Two
Hundred and Three Only) shall be immediately released to her
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09
17:33:29 +0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 33 of 37
through her MACT saving bank account and remaining amount
alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the form of
FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for one month, two
months, three months and so on and so forth having cumulative
interest.
66. The entire share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/- (Rupees
Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith
interest of petitioner no. 2 Tinku be kept in the form of FDR(s)
for the period till he attains the age of majority and thereafter a
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be
released to him in his MACT saving Bank Account while his
remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be
kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for
a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and
so forth, having cumulative interest.
67. The entire share amount of Rs. 6,67,068/- (Rupees
Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Eight Only) alongwith
interest of petitioner no. 3 Neha be kept in the form of FDR(s)
for the period till she attains the age of majority and thereafter a
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be
released to her in her MACT saving Bank Account while her
remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be
kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for
a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and
so forth, having cumulative interest.
68. The entire share amount of Rs. 6,67,067/- (Rupees
Six Lacs Sixty Seven Thousand and Sixty Seven Only) alongwith
interest of petitioner no. 4 Aditya be kept in the form of FDR(s)
for the period till he attains the age of majority and thereafter a
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:33:36 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 34 of 37
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith upto date interest thereupon be
released to him in his MACT saving Bank Account while his
remaining/balance amount alongwith interest is directed to be
kept in the form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 20,000/- each for
a period of one month, two months, three months and so on and
so forth, having cumulative interest.
69. Out of share amount of petitioner no. 5 Smt. Bimla,
a sum of Rs. 1,44,711/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Four Thousand
Seven Hundred and Eleven Only) shall be immediately released
to her through her MACT saving bank account and remaining
amount alongwith interest amount are directed to be kept in the
form of FDRs in the multiples of Rs. 10,000/- each for one
month, two months, three months and so on and so forth having
cumulative interest.
70. The amount of FDRs on maturity shall directly be
released in petitioners’ MACT Saving Bank Account.
71. All the FDRs to be prepared as per aforesaid
directions, shall be subject to the following conditions:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to
be added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit
accounts of the claimant i.e., the savings bank account
of the claimant shall be an individual savings bank
account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b) The original fixed deposit shall be retained by
the bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity
and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the
claimant.
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of
the claimant near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amounts of the FDR be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTAGUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:43
+0530MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 35 of 37
account of the claimant near the place of their
residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque
book and/or debit card to claimant. However, in case
the debit card and/or cheque book have already been
issued, bank shall cancel the same before the
disbursement of the award amount.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimant to the effect that no cheque
book and/or debit card have been issued and shall not
be issued without the permission of the Court and
claimant shall produce the passbook with the necessary
endorsement before the Court on the next date fixed for
compliance.
Disbursement of Award Amount (in MACT No. 217/23)
72. Statement of petitioner in terms of provisions of
MCTAP was recorded on 16.08.2024. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case and in view of the said statement,
it is hereby ordered that the entire award amount of Rs.
1,02,128/- (Rupees One Lac Two Thousand One Hundred and
Twenty Eight Only) alongwith interest shall be immediately
released to the petitioner Sonu through his MACT saving bank
account.
73. Respondent no. 2 i.e. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Limited, being insurer of offending vehicle,
is directed to deposit the compensation amount in both the cases
with State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch within 30
days as per above order, failing which insurance company shall
be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum for the period of delay.
Concerned Manager, State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts
branch is directed to transfer the award amount alongwith
SACHIN Digitally signed by SACHIN
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2025.04.09 17:33:51
+0530
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 36 of 37
interest, as stated hereinabove, in the MACT saving bank
accounts of claimants/petitioners respectively, on completing
necessary formalities as per rules.
74. Copy of this award alongwith one photograph,
specimen signature, copy of bank passbook and copy of
residence proof of the petitioner, be sent to Nodal Officer of
State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Courts branch, Delhi for
information and necessary compliance.
75. Form XV, Form XVI and Form XVII in terms of
MCTAP are annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
76. A separate file be prepared for compliance report by
the Nazir .
77. A copy of this award be given to the parties free of
cost.
78. A copy of this award be sent to the concerned Ld.
Judicial Magistrate First Class as well as DSLSA as per the
provisions of the Modified Claim Tribunal Agreed Procedure
(MCTAP).
SACHIN Digitally signed by
SACHIN GUPTA
GUPTA 17:33:57 +0530
Date: 2025.04.09
Announced in the open Court (SACHIN GUPTA)
On 9th April, 2025 P.O. MACT-02 (WEST)
THC/Delhi/09.04.2025
MACT No. 785/22, Sapna & Ors. Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Date of Award 09.04.2025
MACT No. 217/23, Sonu Vs. Ramjan & Anr. Page No. 37 of 37