Delhi District Court
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas on 22 July, 2025
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 1 of41
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA, PRESIDING
OFFICER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New No. 429/17
UNIQUE ID No.: DLNW01-004556-2017
Surender Tiwari
S/o Sh. Shiv Balak Tiwari
R/o H.No. 56A, NU Block,
Pitampura, Delhi
........ Petitioner/claimant
Versus
1. Vikas
S/o Late Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o H.No. 50, Gali No.1, Chandan Park,
Libaspur, Siraspur, Delhi
....... Driver/R1
2. Smt. Poonam Devi
S/o Sh. Kailash Singh
R/o H.No. 349, Bandh Road, Aaya Nagar,
Arjun Garh Metro Station, Delhi
Also at: C-27A, Rana Park,
Siraspur, Delhi
....... Owner/R2
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.05.2017
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 14.07.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.07.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE TO BE
MENTIONED IN THE AWARD AS PER FORMAT
REFERRED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
DELHI HIGH COURT IN FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI Vs.
Page 1 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 2 of41
JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018.
1. Date of the accident 12.07.2016
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the 05.05.2017
investigating officer to the Claims
Tribunal
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Vehicle is
investigating officer to the insurance uninsured
company.
4. Date of filing of Report under section Not mentioned in
173 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan the DAR
Magistrate
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident 05.05.2017
Information Report (DAR) by the
investigating Officer before Claims
Tribunal
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Vehicle is
Insurance Company uninsured
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant 05.05.2017
(s).
8. Whether DAR was complete in all Yes
respects?
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR No
removed later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the Yes
documents filed with DAR?
11. Whether there was any delay or No
deficiency on the part of the
Investigating Officer? If so, whether
any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Vehicle is
Officer by the insurance Company. uninsured
13. Name, address and contact number of Vehicle is
the Designated Officer of the Insurance uninsured
Company.
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Vehicle is
Page 2 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 3 of41
Insurance Company submitted his uninsured
report within 30 days of the DAR?
(Clause 22)
15. Whether the insurance company Vehicle is
admitted the liability? If so, whether the uninsured
Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law.
16. Whether there was any delay or Vehicle is
deficiency on the part of the Designated uninsured
Officer of the Insurance Company? If
so, whether any action/direction
warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to Vehicle is
the offer of the Insurance Company . uninsured
18. Date of the Award 22.07.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the No
consent of the parties?
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed Yes
to open saving bank account(s) near
their place of residence?
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 22.07.2022
directed to open saving bank account (s)
near his place of residence and produce
PAN Card and Aadhar Card and the
direction to the bank not issue any
cheque book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an endorsement to
this effect on the passbook(s).
22. Date on which the claimant (s) 13.09.2022
produced the passbook of their saving
bank account near the place of their
residence along with the endorsement,
PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
23. Permanent Residential Address of the As mentioned
Claimant(s) above
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the Petitioner
claimant(s) and the address of the bank Surender Tiwari,
Page 3 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 4 of41
with IFSC Code Savings Bank A/c
No.41252763684
SBI, Prashant
Vihar Market
Branch,
Sector-14,
Rohini, Delhi,
IFSC :
SBIN0004040
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank Yes
account(s) is near his place of
residence?
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined Yes
at the time of passing of the award to
ascertain his/their financial condition.
27. Account number/CIF No, MICR 41065170303,
number, IFSC Code, name and branch 110002427,
of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in SBIN0010323,
which the award amount is to be SBI, Rohini
deposited/transferred. (in terms of order Courts, Delhi
dated 18.01.2018 of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh Tyagi vs
Jaibir Singh.
JUDGMENT
1. The Detailed Accident Report (hereinafter referred as
DAR), was filed in this case on 05.05.2017, with reference
to FIR No. 839/16, U/s 279/337 IPC, PS Rani Bagh, Delhi,
in respect of simple hurt, sustained by the petitioner namely
Surender Tiwari, in a road traffic accident, on 12.07.2016,
at about 8.45 am, at Red Light, Deepali Chowk, on outer
ring road, from Kali Mata Mandir to Madhuban Chowk,
Delhi. The Ld. Predecessor of this Tribunal, vide order
dated 05.05.2017, treated the DAR, as claim petition U/s
Page 4 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 5 of41
166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as M.V. Act). Subsequently, chargesheet was filed by the
IO, against Vikas S/o Sh. Suresh (hereinafter referred as the
driver/respondent no.1/R1), for the alleged commission of
offence U/s 279/338 IPC, read with Section 39/192 and
146/196 of M.V. Act, because the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, was opined to be grievous in nature and R1
failed to produce registration certificate and insurance
policy of the vehicle in question.
2. Brief facts of the case, as discernible from the DAR,
including the documents annexed with the DAR, are that,
on 12.07.2016, the petitioner Surender Tiwari S/o Sh. Balak
Shiv Tiwari (hereinafter referred as the claimant/petitioner/
injured), was coming on his bicycle, from Mangol Puri, via
outer ring road, and was going towards his house. It was
further alleged that at about 8.45 am, when the petitioner
crossed the red light, from the side of Kali Mata Mandir,
then he was hit by one Eeco van, bearing registration no.
DL-6CL-7695 (hereinafter referred as offending vehicle),
which was coming from the side of Naharpur Village and
was driven by R1, at a high speed, in a rash, negligent and
zig-zag manner, as a result of which, the petitioner along
with his bicycle, fell down on the road and has sustained
injuries on his left leg.
3. It was further averred that after the accident, R1 stopped the
offending vehicle, at the spot, took the petitioner to Dr.
Page 5 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 6 of41
Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as BSA Hospital) and after taking
phone number of the petitioner, R1 called at his house, after
which, his son Dharmender and wife reached at the hospital
and R1 disclosed his name as Vikas Dahiya R/o H.No. 50,
Chandan Park, Siraspur, Delhi and also gave his phone
number 9716843895. It was further alleged that R1 orally
compromised with the son and wife of the petitioner and it
was agreed between them, that R1 will make payment of
the entire treatment of the petitioner and after the said
compromise, R1 left the hospital, with the offending
vehicle. It was further averred that wife of the petitioner got
him admitted at BSA Hospital, where his MLC bearing no.
8833/2016 and police report was prepared and at BSA
Hospital, the petitioner came to know that he has suffered
fracture on his left leg and thereafter, when he has not got
any relief, he received further treatment from Balaji Action
Hospital. It was further averred that when wife of the
petitioner asked money from R1, for the medical treatment
of the petitioner, R1 though told her that he will pay the
amount but, he has not given any money, thereafter wife
and daughter of the petitioner, went to the house of R1 but,
he has not given any amount, for the medical treatment of
the petitioner till date. It was further averred that he has not
taken any legal action, immediately after the accident, due
to compromise with R1 but, as R1 failed to honor the terms
of settlement therefore, he has reported the matter to the
police, on 25.09.2016, after discharge from the hospital.
Page 6 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 7 of41
4. As per DAR, at the time of accident, the offending vehicle
was driven by R1, the same was registered in the name
Smt. Poonam S/o Sh. Kailash Singh (hereinafter referred as
owner of the offending vehicle/respondent no.2/R2) and it
was un-insured.
5. R1 has appeared only once i.e at the time of filing of DAR
and he also failed to file any written statement therefore, his
defence was struck off, vide order dated 06.11.2017.
6. R2 has filed her written statement, wherein, R2 averred that
the offending vehicle was under the supervision and control
of R1, who was responsible for getting the vehicle insured,
before the expiry of insurance policy and she has no
knowledge about the insurance cover, which was in force,
at the time of alleged accident. It was further stated that the
vehicle in question was not involved in the present case and
has been falsely implicated by the IO.
7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Learned Predecessor, vide order dated
06.11.2017:-
1. Whether on 06.11.2017 at about 8.45 am, at Red Light
Deepali Chowk, Kali Mata Mandir to Madhuban
Chowk, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, one Eeco van bearing
registration no. DL-6CL-7695, which was being driven
rashly and negligently by Vikas, hit Surender Tiwari
and caused injuries to him? OPPPage 7 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 8 of41
2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP.
3. Relief.
8. After framing of issues, opportunities were given to all the
parties, to prove their respective averments, by leading
evidence in support of the same. In support of his case, the
petitioner examined two witnesses.
9. The petitioner got himself examined as PW1, by way of
evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has placed reliance on
photocopies of his treatment record as Mark-A, few
medical bills as Ex.PW1/2 and entire DAR as Ex.PW1/3
(Colly). His deposition qua the accident in question and
injuries sustained by him, in the case accident, is reiteration
of the facts mentioned in the DAR/claim petition. He
further deposed that on 25.09.2016, he went to the police
station Rani Bagh and lodged FIR against driver Vikas
Dahiya/R1, after which, police seized the offending vehicle
and also arrested R1. He further deposed that the IO of the
case also filed chargesheet against R1, in the concerned
court of Ld. MM. He further deposed that the said accident
took place, solely and entirely, due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle, by its driver /R1 Vikas. He
further deposed that in the accident, he has sustained
injuries i.e fracture anterior, post and medial wall of left
acetabulum, fracture left superior and inferior pubic rami,
urinary tract infection (UTI), abrasions and blunt injuries,
Page 8 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 9 of41all over his body. He further deposed that on 18.07.2016, he
was admitted at Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute at
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, from where, he was discharged
on 27.08.2016. He further deposed that thereafter, he visited
the clinic of Dr. Suneel Kumar, for about 5 to 10 times, for
regular check-up. He further deposed that he has received
serious/grievous injuries, in the accident and he has
suffered permanent disability. He further deposed that he
has undergone lot of pain and suffering, on account of
injuries, received by him, in the accident and now, he
cannot walk and run properly. He further deposed that he
has spent about Rs. 10,000/- on his medical treatment, Rs.
15,000/- on conveyance, Rs. 20,000/- on special diet and
Rs.12,000/- on attendant charges. He further deposed that at
the time of accident, he was doing service as Godown
Keeper, with Shakti Bhog Aata, Mangolpuri, Delhi and was
getting Rs. 15,000/- per month, as salary. He further
deposed that due to the serious/grievous injuries, sustained
by him, in the accident, he could not resume his work, from
the date of accident, till today.
10. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R2, wherein
he deposed that he had seen both sides of the road, prior to
crossing the same, so as to see, if any vehicle was coming
or not. He voluntarily deposed that he had already crossed
the road and then stopped. He further deposed that he had
seen that some vehicle was coming from the side of village
Naharpur. He further deposed that he had not informed
Page 9 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 10 of41
about the accident to the police. He voluntarily deposed that
after the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle, had
taken him to the hospital, where his son came, who called
the police. He further deposed that his son Dharmender
reached at the hospital within 10 minutes. He further
deposed that his medical treatment was done at Dr BSA
hospital and Balaji Hospital, Paschim Vihar. Delhi. He
further deposed that no doctor referred him to Balaji
hospital and he on his own, went to the said hospital. He
further deposed that he had firstly gone to Balaji hospital on
18.07.2016. He denied the suggestion, that the driver of the
offending vehicle had borne all the medical expenses, due
to which, he has not lodged any complaint against R1. He
further deposed that no doctor referred him to the clinic of
Dr. Sunil Kumar. He further deposed that he had not filed
any bill of clinic of Dr. Sunil Kumar, for his treatment. He
denied the suggestion, that he did not suffer any permanent
disability, due to the accident. He further deposed that he
has not filed any bills, for his expenses, mentioned by him
in paragraph, no. 5 i.e. Rs 10,000/- on medical treatment,
Rs. 15,000/-on conveyance. Rs. 20,000/- on special diet and
Rs. 12,000/-on attendant charges. He denied the suggestion,
that he has already received all his expenses, as incurred,
due to the accident, from the respondents or that now
nothing else is due.
11. The petitioner further examined Dr. Lohitesh, S.R.
Orthopedic, Dr. BSA Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi as
Page 10 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 11 of41
PW2. He was a summoned witness. He deposed that as on
date of his deposition, he has appeared on behalf of Dr.
Abhimanyu Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of
Orthopedic, Dr. BSA Hospital, to depose in this case. He
further deposed that the patient Surender Tiwari, aged 43
years was medically examined by Board of Doctors of Dr.
BSA Hospital, to ascertain his permanent disability, it any.
He further deposed that he had seen the disability certificate
No. 1440, dated 17.01.2019, issued by the Board,
consisting of Dr. Abhimanyu Singh, qua patient Surender
Tiwari. He further deposed that he can identify the
signatures of Dr. Abhimanyu Singh, as he has worked under
him. He further deposed that Dr. Abhimanyu Singh has
since left the services of the hospital. He exhibited the
disability certificate, along with the assessment sheets as
Ex.PW2/A (colly), by identifying the signatures of Dr.
Abhimanyu Singh, at point A. He further deposed that as
per the said disability certificate, the patient has suffered
permanent physical disability, to the tune of 28%, in
relation to both lower limbs, with diagnosis of post
traumatic stiffness of bilateral hip. He further deposed that
the patient would feel difficulty, while sitting cross legged,
walking on slope and taking turns. During the course of his
examination, a court question was asked to PW2, as to
whether the patient can perform his work as a labourer, with
aforesaid disability, to which he answered that the patient
can work as a labourer but, with some difficulty.
Page 11 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 12 of41
12. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R2, wherein
he deposed that he has never medically examined the said
patient and he has deposed only as per record. He further
deposed that he has no personal knowledge. He denied the
suggestion, that the disability of the patient/petitioner was
not properly assessed or that it was not assessed, as per the
guidelines of the government. He further denied the
suggestion, that the disability of the petitioner is not
permanent in nature or that it has been enhanced, to benefit
the petitioner.
13. In her defence, R2 got herself examined as R2W1, by way
of affidavit Ex.R2W1/A, wherein she deposed that the
alleged offending vehicle, bearing registration no.
DL-6CL-7695, is involved in the present case. She further
deposed that R1 was driving the alleged offending vehicle,
at the time of accident. She further deposed that the alleged
vehicle was under the supervision and control of R1, who
was responsible for getting the vehicle insured, before the
expiry of the insurance policy and she has no knowledge
about the insurance cover in force, at the time of alleged
accident. She further deposed that as on the date of her
deposition, she has brought the photocopy of one E-stamp
paper, pertaining to sale of vehicle no. DL-6CL-7695, by
her to Smt. Kamlesh Devi, which is Mark-A (objected to).
R2W1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner, wherein she admitted that the vehicle bearing No
DL-6CL-7695, is still registered in her name, in the record
Page 12 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 13 of41
of RTA. She further deposed that she is not an eye witness
of the case accident. She further deposed that at the time of
accident, Sh. Vikas/R1, was driving the offending vehicle.
She admitted that neither she has filed any complaint in
writing, before any authority, either judicial or police
authority, regarding false implication of her above said
offending vehicle or of the driver Sh. Vikas/R1, nor she had
any enmity with the petitioner Sh. Surender. She denied the
suggestion, that Mark A mentions the sale of vehicle No.
DL-6CC-7695 and not DL-6CL-7695. She denied the
suggestion, that Mark A is a false and fabricated document.
She further denied the suggestion, that the contents of Mark
A has not been mentioned by her in her written statement.
Thereafter, she was confronted with her written statement,
wherein no such contents of Mark A was mentioned. She
further denied the suggestion, that it was her duty, to get her
vehicle insured.
14. This Tribunal has heard the final arguments, as advanced
by Ld. Counsel for the parties and have carefully perused
the record.
15. On appreciation of evidence, as adduced by the parties, in
support of their respective versions, the issue-wise findings
of this Tribunal, are reproduced herein below:
ISSUE No. 1
Whether on 06.11.2017 at about 8.45 am, at Red Light Deepali
Page 13 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 14 of41Chowk, Kali Mata Mandir to Madhuban Chowk, Outer Ring
Road, Delhi, one Eeco van bearing registration no.
DL-6CL-7695, which was being driven rashly and negligently by
Vikas, hit Surender Tiwari and caused injuries to him? OPP
16. The onus of proving this issue, on preponderance of
probabilities was upon the petitioner/claimant. For deciding
the present issue, the testimony of PW1 Surender Tiwari is
relevant, being an eyewitness, as well as the
injured/petitioner. PW1 deposed that on 12.07.2016, he was
coming on his bicycle, from Mangol Puri, via outer ring
road, and was going towards his house. PW1 further
deposed that at about 8.45 am, when he crossed the red
light, from the side of Kali Mata Mandir, then he was hit by
one Eeco van, bearing registration no. DL-6CL-7695,
which was coming from the side of Naharpur Village and
was driven by R1, at a high speed, in a rash, negligent and
zig-zag manner, as a result of which, he along with his
bicycle, fell down on the road and has sustained injuries on
his left leg.
17. PW1 further deposed that after the accident, R1 stopped the
offending vehicle, at the spot, took him to Dr. Baba Sahab
Ambedkar Hospital, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi and after
taking his phone number, R1 called at his house, after
which, his son Dharmender and wife reached at the hospital
and R1 disclosed his name as Vikas Dahiya R/o H.No. 50,
Chandan Park, Siraspur, Delhi and also given his phone
number 9716843895. PW1 further deposed that R1 orally
Page 14 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 15 of41
compromised with his son and wife and agreed to make
payment of his entire treatment expenses and after the said
compromise, R1 left the hospital, with the offending
vehicle. PW1 further deposed that his wife had got him
admitted at BSA Hospital, where his MLC bearing no.
8833/2016 and police report was prepared and at BSA
Hospital, he came to know that he has suffered fracture on
his left leg and thereafter, when he has not got any relief, he
received further treatment from Balaji Action Hospital.
PW1 further deposed that when his wife asked money from
R1, for his medical treatment, R1 though told her that he
will pay the amount but, he has not given any money,
thereafter, his wife and daughter, went to the house of R1
but, he has not given any amount, for his medical treatment,
till date. PW1 further deposed that he has not taken any
legal action immediately after the accident, due to
compromise with R1 but, as R1 failed to honor the terms of
settlement therefore, he has reported the matter to the
police, on 25.09.2016, after discharge from the hospital.
18. PW1 was although cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for R2
but, R2, failed to impeach the credibility of PW1 and failed
to elicit any admissions, from the testimony of PW1, so as
to prove that the alleged accident has not taken place, with
the offending vehicle or due to rash and negligent driving
of the offending vehicle by R1. Rather, during the course of
cross examination of PW1, a suggestion was given to PW1,
that all his treatment expenses of PW1, were borne by R1,
which PW1 has denied. By putting the said suggestion, R2
Page 15 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 16 of41
infact admitted that the accident has taken place, due to
rashness or negligence on the part of R1, in driving the
offending vehicle because, if there was no fault on the part
of R1, in causing the accident in question, then, there
would be no reason, as to the expenses of treatment of
PW1, being borne by R1.
19. Further, R2 also got herself examined as R2W1, by way of
affidavit Ex. R2W1/A, wherein also, R2 admitted that at
the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by
R1. And as R1 failed to file any written statement and also
failed to cross-examine PW1, despite being granted
opportunity, therefore, he also deemed to have admitted,
that there was rashness or negligence, on his part, in
causing the accident in question. R1 further failed to lead
any evidence, to prove that there was no negligence on his
part or that he was falsely implicated in this case by the IO,
in connivance with the petitioner. Further, R1 also failed to
prove that he has ever approached to any higher authority,
with respect to his false implication, in the present case.
Consequently, in view of the unrebutted testimony of PW1,
it stands duly proved, that the accident, in which, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries, as evident from
his treatment papers, including MLC No. 8833/2016, has
taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending vehicle by R1.
Issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondents.
Page 16 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 17 of41
ISSUE No. 2
Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what
amount and from whom?OPP
20. In view of the findings of this Tribunal, qua issue no.1
regarding negligence of R1, resulting in the occurrence of
the case accident, this Tribunal is of the considered
opinion, that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to
compensation, in respect of pain and suffering, medical
expenses, special diet charges, conveyance charges and
other expenditure, incurred by him, on account of injuries,
sustained in the above-mentioned road traffic accident.
This Tribunal shall now examine the entire evidence,
including the documents of the petitioner/claimant, for the
purpose of arriving at a finding about the quantum of
compensation, to which the petitioner/claimant is entitled.
21. Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claim Tribunal, to hold
an inquiry into the claim, to make an award determining
the amount of compensation, which appears to it, to be just
and reasonable. It has to be borne in mind that the
compensation is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza
nor it should be niggardly.
MEDICAL EXPENSES
22. To prove the amount spent by the petitioner, on his
treatment, the petitioner/PW1 got himself examined as
Page 17 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 18 of41
PW1, by way of evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A, wherein he
deposed that he has spent Rs.10,000/- on his medical
treatment. In his evidence, PW1 has placed reliance on his
medical bills as Ex.PW1/2 (Colly). However, after careful
consideration of the medical bills, of the petitioner, it came
on record, that he has incurred aggregate expenditure of Rs.
4,191.1/-, on his medical treatment. Accordingly, in view of
the original medical bills, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs. 4,191.1/-, towards medical expenses.
Thus, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to award
compensation of Rs. 4,191.1/, to the petitioner, under the
head of medical expenses.
SPECIAL DIET AND CONVEYANCE
23. The petitioner has sought an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, as
compensation, on account of his expenditure, on special
diet and Rs.15,000/- towards expenditure on conveyance,
however, he has not placed on record, any prescription slip
of a doctor, medical practitioner or dietitian, issued in his
name (the name of the petitioner), advising him to take any
form of special diet or any bill of special diet, such as high
protein diet or liquid diet or nutritional supplements, for
speedy recovery of the injuries, sustained by him, in the
case accident.
24. Further, he has also not placed on record, any bill of
conveyance, such as bills raised by any private taxi service
Page 18 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 19 of41
or ambulance service, availed by him, for travelling to the
hospital, from his residence or vice versa, during his
treatment period. In such circumstances, the requirement of
special diet and conveyance, if any faced by the petitioner,
during his treatment period, has to be ascertained, in
accordance with the nature of injuries, sustained by the
petitioner.
25. In this context, a perusal of court record reveals that as per
the medical treatment papers of the petitioner
Ex.PW1/2(Colly), as well as MLC filed with the DAR
Ex.PW1/3, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries,
due to the accident and after the accident, initially, he was
taken to BSA Hospital and thereafter, he has received
treatment from Balaji Action Hospital, Paschim Vihar,
Delhi, where he remains admitted for the period 18.07.2016
to 27.08.2016 i.e. for a total period of 42 days, from the
date of accident. Perusal of the record further reveals that
the petitioner has undergone multiple procedures/surgeries,
during the period of his hospitalization, at Balaji Action
Hospital and even thereafter, he was under continuous
treatment upto 24.11.2016, as evident from the last medical
bill dated 24.11.2016.
26. Besides this, the petitioner has examined Dr. Lohitesh, as
PW2, who proved on record disability certificate of the
petitioner, bearing No. 1440, dated 17.01.2019, as
Ex.PW2/A, as per which, the petitioner has sustained 28%
Page 19 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 20 of41
permanent physical disability, in relation to both lower
limbs, with diagnosis of post traumatic stiffness of bilateral
hip, due to the injuries, sustained in the case accident.
Accordingly, in view of the nature of injuries, sustained by
the petitioner, as well as after considering the period of his
hospitalization, coupled with 28% physical permanent
disability, in relation to his both lower limbs, the period of
treatment cum recuperation, in case of the petitioner, is
ascertained to be about 06 months. Consequently, this
Tribunal is of the opinion, that during his treatment cum
recuperation period, the petitioner must have incurred
expenses, in procuring special diet, for his speedy recovery,
as well as in travelling from his residence to hospital and
vice versa. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs.30,000/-,
is granted under this head to the petitioner, which includes
Rs. 15,000/- each, towards special diet and conveyance
respectively.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
27. The petitioner has sought an amount of Rs. 12,000/-, as
compensation, on account of expenditure incurred by him,
towards attendant charges. But, the petitioner failed to place
on record any receipt, as to any payment, being made by
him to any agency, from which, he had hired any attendant
or any document, to show credit of any amount, to any
attendant or agency. He had also failed to examine any
attendant, allegedly hired by him, during the said period.
However, taking into consideration the fact that the
Page 20 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 21 of41
petitioner has duly proved that as a result of the accident, he
has sustained grievous injuries, with 28% permanent
disability, in relation to his both lower limbs and as his
treatment cum recuperation period has already been
assessed to be about 06 months, therefore, this Tribunal is
of the opinion, that the petitioner must have felt compelled
to avail services of a medical attendant or a family member
as an attendant, for self care activities, such as, bathing,
dressing up, using rest room, combing his hairs, eating etc.,
during his treatment cum recuperation period of 6 months.
Accordingly, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to award a
lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/-, as compensation to the
petitioner, under this head, towards attendant charges.
COMPENSATION DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY/
LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY DUE TO
DISABILITY
28. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of
loss of income, due to the permanent disability, sustained
by the petitioner, in the case accident.
29. Perusal of the court record reveals that as per disability
certificate bearing No. 1440 dated 17.01.2019, issued by
Board of Doctors of Dr. BSA Hospital Ex.PW2/A, the
petitioner has sustained 28% permanent disability, in
relation to his both lower limbs, with diagnosis of post
traumatic stiffness of bilateral hip.
Page 21 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 22 of41
30. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its order passed in case of
Rajesh Tyagi & Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors, FAO 842/2003,
date of order 09.03.2018 has inter alia held that same
percentage of permanent disability may have different
impact upon earning capacity of different individuals, based
upon the nature of their work. Relevant extract of
observations made in para no.6.4 and 6.5 of the judgment
passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the above named
case is reproduced hereinbelow:
“6.4 The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different
persons, depending upon the nature of profession,
occupation or job, education and other factors.
6.5. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps:
(i) The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities the
claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent disability
and what he could not do as a result of the permanent
disability (this is also relevant for awarding compensation
under the head of loss of amenities of life).
(ii) The second step is to ascertain his avocation,
profession and nature of work before the accident, as also
his age.
(iii) The third step is to find out whether :
a) The claimant is totally disabled, earning any kind of
livelihood, or
b) Whether in spite of the permanent disability, the
claimant could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or
c) Whether he was prevented all restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but could
carry on some other or lesser scale of activities and
functions so that he continues to earn or can continue to
earn his livelihood.”
Page 22 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 23 of41
31. In the light of above cited observations made by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi, in the decided case of Rajesh Tyagi &
Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors (supra), it can be safely
concluded that same percentage of permanent disability can
have different impact on functional capacity and earning
potential of an individual depending upon the nature of his
job. Therefore, the functional disability has to be
ascertained, taking into consideration its impact on the
work of the claimant.
32. In the present matter, the petitioner/PW1 deposed that at the
time of accident, he was doing service as Godown Keeper,
with Shakti Bhog Aata, Mangolpuri, Delhi and he was
getting Rs. 15,000/- per month, as his salary. He further
deposed that due to the serious/grievous injuries, sustained
by him, in the accident, he could not resume his work, from
the date of accident, till the date of his deposition, as he is
unable to work. But, the petitioner failed to place on record,
any document, so as to prove that he was doing the work of
godown keeper, with Shakti Bhog Aata and earning Rs.
15,000/- per month, as alleged.
33. The petitioner has examined PW2, who during the course
of his evidence before this Tribunal, deposed that the
petitioner has sustained 28% permanent disability, in
relation to his both lower limbs, with diagnosis of post
traumatic stiffness of bilateral hip. He further deposed that
the patient would feel pain, while squatting and while
Page 23 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 24 of41
standing on the affected limb. During the course of his
evidence, a court question was put to the witness, as to
whether the patient can perform his work as a labourer, with
the aforesaid disability, to which he replied that the patient
can perform the said work but, with some difficulty. But, as
the petitioner was unable to prove on record, that he was
doing the said work of godown keeper, with Shakti Bhog
Aata, therefore, deposition of PW2, as to the impact of
permanent disability, as sustained by the petitioner, on his
working capacity as a labourer, cannot be taken into
consideration. However, as per deposition of PW1 himself,
he was doing work as a godown keeper i.e of an unskilled
person, therefore, this Tribunal deems it appropriate, to
assess the functional disability of the petitioner, qua his
whole body as 14%.
34. The petitioner Surender Tiwari has not proved on record his
educational qualification. The petitioner further failed to
prove, that he was doing the work of godown keeper and
has also failed to prove that he has taken any training or
professional education, from any authorized institute.
However, he has placed on record copy of his Aadhar card,
as per which, his date of birth was shown as 01.01.1975.
Further, as per Aadhar card of the petitioner, at the time of
accident, the petitioner was residing at T-Huts-7, Ambika
Apartment, Plot No. 5, Sector-14, Rohini, North West
Delhi, Delhi-110085. Therefore, it can be safely concluded
that at the time of accident, the petitioner was resident of
Page 24 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 25 of41
Delhi. Accordingly, the income of the petitioner is
determined on the basis of minimum wages, payable to an
unskilled person, in Delhi, as on the date of occurrence of
the case accident. The minimum wages of an unskilled
person, in State of Delhi, on the date of occurrence of case
accident was Rs.9,568/- per month. Accordingly, it would
be reasonable and just to consider the income of the
petitioner, as Rs.9,568/- per month, on the date of
occurrence of the case accident in question i.e. on
12.07.2016.
Addition of Future Prospects.
35. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to addition of
future prospects in his monthly income, reference should be
made to the latest Constitutional Bench Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, SLP
(Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision 31.10.2017,
wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court interalia held as under:-.
61. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record
our conclusions:-
(i)……………………………………………………………………………..
(ii) ………………………………………………………………………….
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future
prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and
was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The
addition should be 30% , if the age of the deceased was
between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between
Page 25 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 26 of41the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below the
age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased
was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation. The
established income means the income minus the tax
component.
(v) For the determination of the multiplicand, the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of
Sarla Verma which we have reproduced herein before.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the
Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,
loss of estate, loss of consortium and future expenses
should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-
respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at
the rate of 10% in every three years. ”
(…. Emphasis Supplied)
36. Reference is also made to the case of Sanjay Oberoi vs
Manoj Bageriya, MAC APPEAL 829/2011 decided on
03.11.2017 & Prem Chand vs Shamim Husain & Ors,
MAC.APP. 1003/2017 decided on October 11,2018 by
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
37. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Oberoi
(Supra), after referring to the judgment of the Constitution
bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &Page 26 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 27 of41Ors, SLP (Civil) No. 25590 of 2014, date of decision
31.10.2017 granted element of future prospects of increase
in the income, in a case, where the income of the petitioner
was notionally assessed on the basis of minimum wages
with functional disability @ 10%.
38. As per Aadhar Card of the petitioner, his date of birth is
0.01.1975 and the accident in question has occurred on
12.07.2016, therefore the age of the injured, at the time of
accident was 41 years, 06 months and 11 days. In view of
paragraph no. 61 (iv) of above said judgment in Pranay
Sethi (Supra), the petitioner would be entitled to an addition
of 25% of the established income, as he was above the age
of 40 years at the time of his accident. The monthly income
of the petitioner is thus calculated as Rs. 9,568/- + 25% of
9,568/-, which comes to Rs.9,568/-+ 2,392/- = Rs.11,960/-.
39. The age of the petitioner at the time of accident was about
41 years 06 months and 11 days. In the said circumstances,
the relevant multiplier has to be calculated as per the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009
ACJ 1298. As per the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma
case by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, multiplier of 14 is
to be applied for computing compensation payable to a
victim of Road Traffic Accident aged between 41 years to
45 years. The compensation is accordingly assessed
towards loss of earning capacity at Rs.2,81,299.20/-
Page 27 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 28 of41
[(Rs.11,960/- per month x 12 months x 14 (age multiplier) x
14/100 (functional disability)].
LOSS OF AMENITIES OF LIFE.
40. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly proved that as
a result of the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries,
with 28% permanent disability, in relation to his both lower
limbs and as his treatment cum recuperation period has
already been assessed to be about 06 months accordingly, it
can be safely concluded, that the petitioner must have
suffered loss of enjoyment of life and its amenities, due to
permanent disability, sustained by him, which is 28%, on
account of having met with the case accident and therefore,
this Tribunal deems it appropriate to grant a total sum of
Rs.30,000/-, as compensation to the petitioner, under the
said head of loss of amenities of life.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
41. The petitioner has claimed compensation, on account of
trauma suffered by him, due to the injuries sustained in the
case accident. In the present matter, the petitioner has duly
proved that as a result of the accident, he has sustained
grievous injuries, with 28% permanent disability, in relation
to his both lower limbs, with diagnosis of post traumatic
stiffness of bilateral hip and as his treatment cum
recuperation period has already been assessed to be about
Page 28 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 29 of41
06 months accordingly, this Tribunal is of the opinion that
the petitioner must have suffered acute pain and mental
agony, during his treatment and on account permanent
disability suffered by him. Accordingly, a lump sum amount
of Rs. 40,000/-, is granted in favour of the petitioner, under
the said head.
LOSS OF INCOME
42. Petitioner in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A,
has deposed that at the time of accident, he was doing
service as godown keeper with Shakti Bhog Aata,
Mangolpuri, Delhi but, he failed to prove on record, his
income and occupation. Further, in paragraph No. 34, his
monthly income has already been assessed as Rs. 9,568/-
and since the treatment-cum-recuperation period of the
petitioner has already been determined to be 06 months,
accordingly, a sum of Rs. 57,408/- (Rs.9,568/- x 06
months), is awarded in favour of the petitioner, as
compensation under the head of loss of income.
43. Accordingly, the over all compensation which is to be
awarded to the petitioner comes to Rs. 4,57,899/- which is
tabulated as below
Sl. No Compensation Award amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
2 Special diet & Conveyance Rs. 30,000/-
3. Attendant Charges Rs. 15,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs. 4,191.1/-
Page 29 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 30 of41
5. Loss of income Rs.57,408/-
6. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 30,000/-
7. Loss of future earning capacity Rs. 2,81,299.2/-
Total Rs. 4,57,898.3/-
Rounded off to Rs. 4,57,899/-
(Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred
Ninety Nine only)
44. In respect of entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the
awarded amount, it is noteworthy that the Hon’ble Apex
Court had in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48
(SC) of the back the victims of Uphaar Tragedy be awarded
compensation with interest @ 9% per annum. Therefore, in
the interest of justice, in the present case also this court is of
the opinion that the claimant/petitioner is entitled to interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition
i.e. w.e.f 05.05.2017 till realization of the compensation
amount.
45. The amount of interim award, if any, shall however be
deducted from the above amount, if the same has already
been paid to the petitioner.
LIABILITY
46. In the case in hand, in her written statement, R2 has raised
the defence, that at the time of accident, R1 was driving the
offending vehicle and the offending vehicle was under
Page 30 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 31 of41supervision and control of R1, who was responsible for
getting the vehicle insured, before expiry of insurance
policy and R2 has no knowledge, about the insurance cover,
in force, at the time of accident. During the course of
arguments, it was further alleged that the offending vehicle
was sold by her, to one Kamlesh Devi on 21.06.2013 thus,
R2 is not liable to pay any compensation.
47. While deciding issue no.1, it has already been decided, that
at the time of accident, R1 was driving the offending
vehicle, in a rash and negligent and hit the petitioner,
thereby causing injuries to him.
48. Now, the question which arises for determination is, as to
which of the respondents, is liable to pay the compensation
amount. Perusal of the chargesheet reveals that it has been
filed against R1, for the commission of offence U/s 279/338
IPC and U/s 39/192 and U/s 146/196 M.V. Act, because, R1
failed to produce registration certificate and insurance
policy of the offending vehicle. During the course of her
cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, R2W1
admitted that the offending vehicle is still registered in her
name, in the record of RTA. She further deposed that at the
time of accident, Sh. Vikas / R1 was driving the offending
vehicle. She admitted that she has not filed any complaint
in writing before any authority, either judicial or police
authority, regarding false implication of his above said
offending vehicle or the driver/R1, nor she had any enmity
Page 31 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 32 of41
with the petitioner. Perusal of notice U/s 133 of M.V. Act,
also reveals that R2 admitted that on 12.07.2016, Vikas S/o
Suresh (R1) R/o H.No. 50, Gali No.1 Chandan Park,
Libaspur, Delhi-110042, was driving the offending vehicle.
Though, it was also mentioned by her, that she has sold the
said vehicle on 21.06.2013, on sale understanding and as
her husband Kailash Singh was severely sick, and was
getting treatment at AIIMS, therefore, she was not able to
do the documentation work. The contention of R2 that she
has sold the offending vehicle, to one Kamlesh Devi, on
21.06.2013, has not been proved on record, in accordance
with law. Rather, she herself admitted, during the course of
her cross-examination, that the offending vehicle is still
registered in her name, in RTA records. Thus, as the
offending vehicle is still registered in the name of R2 and
the same was uninsured, at the time of accident, therefore,
as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court, in case titled as
Naveen Kumar vs Vijay Kumar and others in Civil Appeal
No. 1427 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18943 of
2016), decided on 06.02.2018, being owner of the offending
vehicle, within the meaning of Section 2(30) of M.V. act,
R2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. In
facts and as per settled law, as discussed above, since the
offending vehicle was uninsured, therefore, R1 and R2,
being driver and registered owner of the offending vehicle
respectively, are jointly and severally liable to pay the entire
compensation amount to the petitioner.
Page 32 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 33 of41
49. Accordingly, in the case in hand, in terms of order dated
16.05.2017 of Hon’ble High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice
J.R. Midha in case of Rajesh Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh and
Ors., R1 and R2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount
of Rs. 4,57,899/- within 30 days from today within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal, that is, State Bank of India,
Rohini Courts Branch, Delhi, along with interest at the rate
of 7.50% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition
till notice of deposition of the awarded amount to be given
by R1 and R2, to the petitioner and his advocate and to
show or deposit the receipt of the acknowledgement with
the Nazir as per rules. R1 and R2 are further directed to
deposit the awarded amount in the above said bank, by
means of cheque, drawn in the name of above said bank,
along with the name of the claimants mentioned therein.
The said bank is further directed to keep the said amount in
fixed deposit in its own name till the claimant approach the
bank for disbursement, so that the awarded amount starts
earning interest, from the date of clearance of the cheque.
APPORTIONMENT
50. Statement of petitioner in terms of clause 29 of MCTAP
was recorded on 13.09.2022 regarding his savings bank A/c
with endorsement of MACT claims SB A/c, no loan,
cheque book & ATM/debit card. I have heard the petitioner
and learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant, regarding
the financial needs of the injured/petitioner and in view of
the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Page 33 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 34 of41
India in the judgment passed in the case of General
Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
Susamma Thomas & Others, 1994 (2) SC, 1631, for
appropriate investments to safeguard the amount from
being frittered away by the beneficiaries owing to their
ignorance, illiteracy and being susceptible to exploitation,
following arrangements are hereby ordered:-
51. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case,
and clause 32 of MCTAP, regarding protection of the award
amount, it is hereby directed, that on realization, an amount
of Rs. 1,57,899/-, be released to him, in his MACT Claims
SB A/c no. 41252763684, SBI, Prashant Vihar Market
Branch, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi, as per rules, that is, the
branch near his place of residence (as mentioned in
statement recorded under clause 29 MCTAP) and remaining
amount be kept in the form of FDRs of equal amount for a
period of one month to 20 months respectively with
cumulative interest without the facility of advance, loan and
pre-mature withdrawal without the prior permission of the
Tribunal.
52. The aforesaid award amount shall be disbursed to the
claimant through the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
Annuity Deposit (MACAD) Scheme formulated by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2018 in case of
Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, FAO 842/2003. However, till
the time MACAD Scheme becomes fully operational and to
Page 34 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 35 of41
ensure that the petitioner is not put to any undue
inconvenience, the fixed deposits shall be subject to
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 victim, that is, the saving bank account(s) of the
claimant(s) shall be individual savings 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(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic Clearing
System (ECS) in the savings bank account of the
claimant/(s) near the place of their residence.
(d) The maturity amount of the FDR(s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the saving bank
account of the claimant(s) near the place of their residence
i.e. above said a/c.
(e) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the court.
(f) The concerned Bank shall not to issue any cheque book
and/or debit card to claimant(s). 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. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of
the claimant(s) so that no debit card be issued in respect of
Page 35 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 36 of41the account of the claimant(s) from any other branch of the
bank.
(g) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook
of the claimant(s) 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(s) shall produce
the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the
court on the next date fixed for compliance.
(h) It is clarified that the endorsement made by the bank
along with the duly signed and stamped by the bank
official on the pass book(s) of the claimant(s) is sufficient
compliance of clause (g) above.
RELIEF
53. As discussed above, R1 and R2 are directed to deposit the
award amount of Rs. 4,57,899/- with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of filing of DAR/petition, that is,
05.05.2017, till realization, within the jurisdiction of this
Tribunal at SBI, Rohini Court Branch, Delhi, within 30
days from today, under intimation of deposition of the
awarded amount to be given by R1 and R2, to the petitioner
and his advocate, failing which the R1 and R2 shall be
liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum, from the period of
delay beyond 30 days.
54. R1 and R2 are also directed to place on record the proof of
deposit of the award amount, proof of delivery of notice in
Page 36 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 37 of41
respect of deposit of the amount in the above said bank to
the claimants and complete details in respect of calculations
of interest etc. in the court within 30 days from today.
55. A copy of this judgment/award be sent to respondent no. 1
and 2 for compliance within the granted time.
56. Nazir is directed to place a report on record in the event of
non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the
granted time.
57. In terms of directions contained in the order dated
07.12.2018 and subsequent order dated 22.02.2019 of
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in the case of Rajesh Tyagi
& Ors vs Jaibir Singh & Ors., FAO 842/2003, the copy of
the award be also sent by the Ahlmad of the court to Mr.
Rajan Singh, Assistant General Manager, State Bank of
India (as per the list of nodal officers of 21 banks of Indian
Bank’s Association as circulated to the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal vide above mentioned order dated
22.02.2019 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court) who is the Nodal
Officer with contact details (022-22741336/9414048606)
{other details-Personal Banking Business Unit (LIMA)
13th Floor, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021} through email
([email protected]) through the computer branch of
Rohini Courts, Delhi. Ahlmad of the court is directed to
take immediate steps in that regard.
Page 37 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 38 of41
58. A copy of this award be forwarded to the concerned
Metropolitan Magistrate and DLSA in terms of the orders
passed by the Hon’ble High Court in FAO 842/2003 Rajesh
Tyagi Vs. Jaibir Singh & Ors. vide order dated 12.12.2014.
59. In view of the directions contained in order dated
18.01.2018 of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha in FAO no.
842/2003 titled as Rajesh Tyagi vs Jaibir Singh, the
statement of petitioner was also recorded on 13.09.2022.
60. Form IVB which has been duly filled in has also been
attached herewith. File be consigned to record room as per
rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Copy
of order be given to parties for necessary compliance as per
Digitally signed
by SHAMA
rules. SHAMA GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2025.07.22
15:09:39 +0530Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 22nd July, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, DelhiPage 38 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 39 of41FORM – IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN
INJURY CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD
1.Date of accident: 12.07.2016
2. Name of injured: Surender Tiwari
3. Age of the injured: About 41 years, 06 months and 11 days at
the time of accident.
4. Occupation of the injured: Private Work
5. Income of the injured: Rs. 9,568/- per month.
6. Nature of injury: Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured: About 06 months.
8. Period of hospitalization: As per record.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details: Yes.
28% Permanent Physical Disability
10. Computation of Compensation
S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs.4,191.1/-
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.15,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.15,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.15,000/-
(v) Loss of earning capacity Rs.2,81,299.2/-
Page 39 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 40 of41
(vi) Loss of income Rs.57,408/-
(vii) Any other loss which may require N/A
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(I) Compensation for mental and N/A
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Rs.30,000/-
(iv) Disfiguration N/A
(v) Loss of marriage prospects N/A
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, N/A
hardships, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress, dejectment
and unhappiness in future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity
(i) Percentage of disability assessed and 28% Permanent Physical
nature of disability as permanent or Disability
temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of N/A
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning 14%
capacity in relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (Income X Rs.2,81,299.2/-[(Rs. 11,960/-
% Earning capacity X Multiplier) per month x12 months x
Page 40 of41
Surender Tiwari vs Vikas and Ors. Page 41 of41
14(age multiplier) x 14/100
(functional disability)].
(v) Future Medical Expenses N/A
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. Rs. 4,57,898.3/- (rounded
off to Rs. 4,57,899/-)
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.50%
16. Interest amount up to the date of Rs.2,82,084.86
award
17. Total amount including interest Rs.7,39,983.86 (rounded off
to Rs. 7,39,984/-)
18. Award amount released Rs.1,57,899/-
19. Award amount kept in FDRs Rs.5,82,085/-
20. Mode of disbursement of the award As per award and in terms of
amount to the claimant (s) clause 29 of MCTAP
(Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the 21.08.2025
award. (Clause 31)
Digitally signed
by SHAMA
SHAMA GUPTA
Date:
GUPTA 2025.07.22
15:09:30
+0530
Announced in open court (SHAMA GUPTA)
on 22nd July, 2025 P.O. MACT N/W
Rohini Courts, Delhi
Page 41 of41