Delhi District Court
Vijay Bahadur vs Dalbir Singh on 19 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI TARUN YOGESH
LD. PO-MACT-01, SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
MACT No.81/2017
CNR No. DLSW01-000775-2017
FIR No. 332/2016
P.S. Kapashera
In the matter of :
1) Sh. Vijay Bahadur
S/o Sh. Ram Bharose
R/o Village Bamnoli Ran Singh Ka Makan,
New Delhi.
... (Petitioner)
Versus
1) Sh. Dalbir Singh
S/o Sh. Rattan Singh
R/o Bamnoli, New Delhi. .... (Driver-cum-owner)
2) TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Plot No. 001, Unit No.310-16,
Wald Trade Tower
Sec-16, Near Metro Station,
Noida, U.P. .... (Insurer)
.... Respondents
Date of Institution : 25.01.2017
Date of Judgment : 19.08.2025
FORM - V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
MODIFIED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEDURE
TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD
1. Date of the accident 20.11.2016
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 22
2. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal
(Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the Not Available
investigating officer to the insurance company.
(Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Not Available
Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate
(Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information 25.01.2017
Report (DAR) by the investigating Officer
before Claims Tribunal (Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance 25.01.2017
Company (Clause 11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). 25.01.2017
(Clause 11)
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? Yes
(Clause 16)
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed N/A
later on?
10. Whether the police has verified the documents Yes
filed with DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on No
the part of the Investigating Officer? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer N/A
by the insurance Company (Clause 20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the N/A
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company.
(Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Not Available
Company submitted his report within 30 days of
the DAR? (Clause 20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the Not Available
liability? If so, whether the Designated Officer
of the insurance company fairly computed the
compensation in accordance with law. (Clause
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 2 of 22
23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on N/A
the part of the Designated Officer of the
Insurance Company? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer No
of the Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 19.08.2025
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent No
of the parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open Yes
saving bank account(s) near their place of
residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were 17.01.2018
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). (Clause 18)
22. Date on which the claimant (s) produced the 15.03.2023
passbook of their saving bank account near the
place of their residence along with the
endorsement, PAN Card and Aadhar Card?
(Clause 18)
23. Permanent Residential Address of the Village Bamnoli
Claimant(s) (Clause 27) Ran Singh Ka
Makan, New
Delhi.
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the S.B. Account No.
claimant(s) and the address of the bank with 28070100005395
IFSC Code (Clause 27) in Bank of
Baroda, Jais, Rae
Bareli (IFSC Code
BARB0JAISBS)
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) Yes
is near his/her place of residence? (Clause 27)
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 3 of 22
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the Yes
time of passing of the award to ascertain
his/their financial condition? (Clause 27)
27. Account number, MICR number IFSC Code, Account No.
name and branch of the bank of the Claims 42709452600 at
Tribunal in which the award amount is to be SBI Dwarka,
deposited/transferred. Sector-10, Dwarka
Courts Complex,
IFSC Code:
SBIN0011566 &
MICR No.
110002483.
AWAR D
Preface
1. Detailed Accident Reports (DAR) seeking compensation
for bodily injury suffered by (i) Sh. Virender; (ii) Sh. Vijay
Bahadur AND (iii) Sh. Chote Lal in motor vehicle accident
arising out of FIR No.332/2016 PS Kapashera are taken up
together to be decided simultaneously.
Background
2. Brief facts gleaned from Final Report under section
279/338/304A IPC would reveal that Virender, Vijay Bahadur,
Chote Lal & Manoj travelling in Tempo No. DL-1LM-7169 met
with an accident on 20.11.2016 at about 2:20 pm after Dalbir
Singh driving the Tempo in zig-zag manner lost control as a
result of which the vehicle turned upside down after hitting the
Divider opposite Subham Garden, Najafgarh-Bijwasan Road,
New Delhi. Injured were shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre in
CATS Ambulance where MLC No.596166/16 of Vijay Bahadur
was prepared recording (i) Swelling Over Right Elbow, Right
Forearm, Right Wrist AND (ii) Abrasion Over Right Elbow
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 4 of 22
which were opined grievous whereas Manoj admitted upon MLC
No. 596163/16 could not survive and succumbed to injuries in
course of treatment.
3. FIR No.332/16 under section 279/337/304A IPC was
registered at PS Kapashera on 20.11.2016 and site-plan was
prepared by the IO. Dead body of Manoj was handed over to its
relatives after identification & postmortem examination at Apex
Trauma Centre, AIIMS, Delhi AND respondent Dalbir Singh
(driver-cum-owner) was formally arrested and released on police
bail. Offending Tempo No. DL-1LM-7169 seized from the spot
was released on superdari after its mechanical inspection and
documents viz. DL, RC, Permit, Fitness and insurance policy of
vehicle were verified from concerned authorities. Statement of
Chote Lal and Vijay Bahadur were recorded and offence under
section 338 IPC was added on the basis of final opinion of
grievous injury. IO, thereafter, concluded investigation and
prepared DAR which was filed in Court along with copy of Final
Report under section 279/338/304A IPC.
Defence
4. Respondent Dalbir Singh (driver-cum-owner) joined
proceedings but did not file any reply.
5. Respondent TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. on its
part has admitted Policy No.0155680207 of vehicle No.DL-
1LM-7169 insured in the name of Dalbir Singh for the period
16.12.2015 to 15.12.2016 and disputed liability of the insurer by
contending that injured travelling in unauthorized capacity being
gratuitous passengers cannot be treated as Third Party hence not
covered under the Policy by adverting to section 147(1)(b)(i)
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 5 of 22
M.V. Act 1988 & IMT 39 read with Sub Clause (2) of the
Insurance Policy.
Inquiry
6. Following issues were settled on 17.01.2018 in MACT
No.2478/2016 titled ‘Bindu Devi Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr.’ and
matter was posted for petitioner’s evidence.
i. Whether Manoj Kumar sustained fatal
injuries and Chote Lal, Vijay Bahadur &
Virender sustained grievous injuries in a
motor vehicle accident dt. 20.11.2016 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle
no.DL-1LM-7169 being driven and owned
by respondent no.1 Dalbir Singh and
insured by respondent no.2 Tata AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd.? …OPP
ii. Whether the petitioners in the above
mentioned cases are entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? …OPP
iii. Relief.
7. Injured Vijay Bahadur examined as PW-2 in the leading
case has inter-alia deposed about (i) grievous injuries on his right
arm, elbow, wrist and multiple injuries over whole body suffered
in motor vehicle accident on 20.11.2016 at about 2:20 pm after
Dalbir Singh driving Tempo No.DL-1LM-7169 in zig-zag
manner lost control as a result of which the vehicle turned upside
down after hitting divider opposite Subham Garden, Najafgarh-
Bijwasan Road, New Delhi; (ii) MLC No.596166/16 of injured
prepared at AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi; (iii) expenses
incurred on treatment, medicines, conveyance, attendant &
special diet; (iv) monthly income Rs.20,000/- by selling
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 6 of 22
vegetables AND (v) general and special damages consequent to
bodily injury suffered in road accident. He has relied upon copy
of Aadhar Card – Ex.PW-2/1.
8. Cross-examination of injured by Ld. counsel for
respondents has been recorded and petitioner’s evidence was
closed on 23.05.2018.
9. R2W1 Sh. Jarrar Ahmed, Manager Legal, TATA AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd. has disputed liability of insurer to pay
compensation by contending that injured Chote Lal, Virender &
Vijay Bahadur were travelling inside the cabin as gratuitous
passengers against Total Capacity of 02 whereas Manoj Kumar
(deceased) was travelling as unauthorized passenger. He has
relied upon following documents for disputing liability of the
insurer:
i. Copy of Registration Certificate – Ex.R2W1/1;
ii. Office Copy of Notice under section 134(c) M.V.
Act and Order XII Rule 8 CPC – Ex.R2W1/2;
iii. Postal Receipts – Ex.R2W1/3 to Ex.R2W1/5 &
iv. Copy of Insurance Policy – Ex.R2W1/6.
10. SI Raj Kumar (IO) being summoned witness examined as
R2W2 has deposed that Open Body Tata Ace No.DL-1LM-7169
was a ‘Goods Carrying Vehicle’ AND no goods were found
loaded in the vehicle as per the seizure memo.
Discussion and Conclusion
11. Advocate Sh. Ajeet Kumar for injured AND Advocate Ms.
Sunanda Nimisha for TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. have
addressed their submissions.
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 7 of 22
12. I have carefully perused pleadings and evidence adduced
on judicial file. My issue wise finding is recorded below:
13. Issue No.1:
Whether Manoj Kumar sustained fatal
injuries and Chote Lal, Vijay Bahadur &
Virender sustained grievous injuries in a
motor vehicle accident dt. 20.11.2016 due to
rash and negligent driving of vehicle
no.DL-1LM-7169 being driven and owned
by respondent no.1 Dalbir Singh and
insured by respondent no.2 Tata AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd.? … OPP
14. Injured Vijay Bahadur in paras 2 & 3 of affidavit Ex.PW-
2/A has deposed about grievous injuries on his right arm, elbow
and multiple injuries over whole body suffered in motor vehicle
accident on 20.11.2016 at about 02:20 pm after Dalbir Singh
driving Tempo No. DL-1LM-7169 in zig-zag manner lost control
as a result of which the vehicle turned upside down after hitting
divider opposite Subham Garden, Najafgarh-Bijwasan Road,
New Delhi.
15. His testimony has remained consistent and nothing
material could be elicited during cross-examination of injured by
ld. Counsel for respondents which could assail his testimony or
impeach its veracity.
16. Respondent Dalbir Singh (driver-cum-owner) on the other
hand has not entered the witness-box to rebut allegation of rash
and negligent driving of Tempo No. DL-1LM-7169 in zig-zag
manner which turned upside down after hitting the Divider
opposite Subham Garden, Najafgarh-Bijwasan Road, New Delhi.
Adverse inference is therefore required to be raised against the
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 8 of 22
driver as per dicta of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Durdadshya Kumar Samal & Ors.
1987 SCC Online Ori. 57 AND Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Co. Vs. Smt. Kamlesh & Ors. decided by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi on 11th November, 2008.
17. It is well settled law that negligence of the driver in case of
road traffic accident is required to be established on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability and standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt does not apply to claim petitions under
Motor Vehicle Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
para 15 of Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SCC 530.
18. Following observations in para 15 of aforesaid judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court being relevant are extracted herein below:
“15. In a situation of this nature, the
Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of
the matter. It was necessary to be borne in
mind that strict proof of an accident caused
by a particular bus in a particular manner
may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been applied….”
19. Similar observation has been recorded by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in para 12 of its judgment delivered in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2007 SCC
Online Del 1700 by holding that proceedings under Motor
Vehicle Act are not akin to proceeding in a civil suit hence strict
rules of evidence are not required to be followed and FIR against
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 9 of 22
the driver along with criminal record of the case showing
completion of investigation by the police leading to Final Report
are sufficient proof to reach the conclusion that the driver was
negligent.
20. FINDING : Issue No.1 is therefore decided by holding
that grievous injury suffered by Vijay Bahadur in motor vehicle
accident on 20.11.2016 was caused as a result of rash and
negligent driving of Tempo No.DL-1LM-7169 by Dalbir Singh
(driver-cum-owner) which vehicle was insured with TATA AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (insurer).
21. Issue No.2
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim
compensation, if so, what amount and from
whom? …OPP
22. Injured Vijay Bahadur having suffered bodily injury in
motor vehicle accident was shifted to JPN Apex Trauma Centre,
AIIMS, Delhi where MLC No.596166/16 was prepared recording
(i) Swelling Over Right Elbow, Right Forearm, Right Wrist AND
(ii) Abrasion Over Right Elbow which were opined grievous.
23. Quantum of compensation is required to be assessed
separately under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads.
24. At the outset, it has to be borne in mind that compensation
is not expected to be a windfall or a bonanza nor it should be
niggardly and Courts & Tribunals have a duty to weigh the
various factors and quantify the amount of compensation which
should be just. What would be “just” compensation is a vexed
question. There can be no golden rule applicable to all cases for
measuring the value of human life or a limb. Measure of
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 10 of 22
damages cannot be arrived at by precise mathematical
calculations. It would depend upon the particular facts and
circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any,
as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Helen C. Rebello
Vs. Maharasthra SRTC, 1999 (1) SCC 90.
25. Following para of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. &
Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 551 being relevant is extracted herein below:
“9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount
of compensation payable to a victim of an
accident, the damages have to be assessed
separately as pecuniary damages and
special damages. Pecuniary damages are
those which the victim has actually incurred
and which are capable of being calculated in
terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary
damages are those which are incapable of
being assessed by arithmetical calculations.
In order to appreciate two concepts
pecuniary damages may include expenses
incurred by the claimant: (i) medical
attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up
to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss.
So far non-pecuniary damages are
concerned, they may include (i) damages for
mental and physical shock, pain and
suffering, already suffered or likely to be
suffered in future; (ii) damages to
compensate for the loss of amenities of life
which may include a variety of matters i.e.
on account of injury the claimant may not be
able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the
loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of
injury the normal longevity of the person
concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience,
hardship, discomfort, disappointment,
frustration and mental stress in life.”
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 11 of 22
26. Heads of compensation under pecuniary and non-
pecuniary damages have been further explained by Hon’ble Apex
Court in para 6 of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. (2011) 1
SCC 343 which reads as under:
“6. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal injury cases are the
following:
Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment,
hospitalization, medicines, transportation,
nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which
the injured would have made had he not
been injured, comprising :
(a) Loss of earning during the period of
treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General
Damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma
as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of
prospects of marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of
normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases,
compensation will be awarded only under
heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious
cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence
of the claimant, that compensation will be
granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii),
(v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings
on account of permanent disability, future
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 12 of 22
medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or
loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of
expectation of life.
NATURE AND EXTENT OF INJURIES
27. MLC No.596166/16 of Vijay Bahadur prepared at JPN
Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, Delhi reveals (i) Swelling Over
Right Elbow, Right Forearm, Right Wrist AND (ii) Abrasion
Over Right Elbow.
28. No other document has been filed on record or relied in
evidence to show any other injury.
MEDICINES AND TREATMENT
29. Injured Vijay Bahadur in para 4 of affidavit has deposed to
have spent Rs.50,000/- on medicines and treatment. PW-2,
nonetheless, during cross-examination by Ld. counsel for
Insurance company has fairly conceded of having not filed any
document verifying expenses incurred on treatment. He is,
therefore, not entitled to any compensation under the head –
Medicines and Treatment in the absence of bills/invoices
verifying expenses incurred on treatment.
CONVEYANCE AND SPECIAL DIET
30. Injured Vijay Bahadur in para 4 of affidavit has deposed to
have spent Rs.50,000/- on special diet and Rs.25,000/- on
conveyance. PW-2, nonetheless, during cross-examination by Ld.
counsel for Insurance company has fairly conceded of having not
filed any document verifying expenses incurred on conveyance
and special diet. It is assumed that injured Vijay Bahadur having
suffered grievous injury must have visited hospital/clinic for
post-operative treatment. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.5,000/-
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 13 of 22
(Rupees Five Thousand only) is awarded to injured towards
conveyance.
31. Similarly, injured Vijay Bahdur must have also needed
special diet for full and complete recovery from grievous injury.
Another sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand only) is
therefore awarded to injured towards special diet.
ATTENDANT CHARGES
32. It is assumed that injured Vijay Bahadur having suffered
grievous injury might have needed an attendant to assist him for
around one months even if such gratuitous service was rendered
by some or the other of his family/relatives. Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Kumari
Lalita 1982 SCC Online Delhi 123 has held that the victim
cannot be deprived of compensation towards gratuitous service
rendered by some of his family member. Accordingly, in the facts
and circumstances of the case and in view of material on record,
a sum of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) is awarded
to injured towards attendant charges.
LOSS OF INCOME
33. Injured Vijay Bahadur in para 5 of affidavit Ex.PW-2/A has
deposed about monthly income Rs.20,000/- by selling
vegetables. Monthly income of injured in the absence of cogent
evidence is taken as per minimum wage of ‘Unskilled Person’ @
Rs.9,724/- applicable in Delhi w.e.f. 1.10.2016.
34. It is assumed that injured Vijay Bahadur would have taken
around a month to recover from grievous injury. He is, therefore,
awarded Rs.9,724/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Seven Hundred &
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 14 of 22
Twenty Four only) towards loss of earning in course of recovery
from fracture & grievous injury.
PAIN AND SUFFERING
35. Following factors are to be taken into account for assessing
compensation under the head – Pain and Suffering:
i. Nature of injury;
ii. Parts of body where injuries occurred;
iii. Surgeries, if any;
iv. Confinement in hospital;
v. Duration of the treatment.
36. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para 9 of Arvind
Kumar Mishra Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(2010) 10 SCC 254 has observed that whole idea in case of
assessment of all damages for personal injury is to put the
claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can.
Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in
mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the
hands of wrongdoer and Court must take care to give him full
and fair compensation for that he had suffered.
37. Injured Vijay Bahadur having suffered grievous injury was
discharged from JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, Delhi on the
same day. It would be apposite to award him a sum of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under the head – ‘Pain
& Suffering’.
LOSS OF AMENITIES, LOSS OF EXPECTATION OF
LIFE, LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING/PROSPECTS AND
FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
38. Compensation for (i) loss of future earning/prospects AND
(ii) non pecuniary damages including loss of amenities and loss
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 15 of 22
of expectation of life is not required to be assessed in the absence
of serious injury resulting in permanent physical disability.
39. Break-up of compensation awarded to injured under
pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads is mentioned below in
tabulated form:
S. No. HEADS AMOUNT (in
Rupees)
1. Medicines & Treatment -
2. Conveyance Rs.5,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.5,000/-
4. Attendant Charges Rs.8,000/-
5. Loss of Income Rs.9,724/-
6. Pain & Suffering Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.37,724/- rounded
off to Rs.37,800/-
INTEREST
40. There is nothing on record to justify withholding interest
on the award amount. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, it will be just and proper to
grant interest @ 7.5% per annum on the award amount in terms
of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johar & Anr. (2019) 15 SCC
260. Injured Vijay Bahadur is therefore awarded interest @ 7.5%
per annum upon award amount Rs.37,800/- (Rupees Thirty
Seven Thousand & Eight Hundred only) from the date of filing
of DAR on 25.01.2017 till notice of deposit under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC to petitioner/counsel.
LIABILITY
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 16 of 22
41. Advocate Ms. Sunanda Nimisha for TATA AIG General
Insurance Co. Ltd. has disputed liability of the insurer by
adverting to written statement read with sub-clause (2) of the
insurance policy which reads as under:
“Limitation as to Use: The Policy covers use
only under a permit within the Meaning of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or such a carriage
falling under sub Section (3) of Section 66 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Policy does not cover
…. (2) Use for carrying passengers in the
vehicle except employees (other than the
driver) not exceeding the number permitted
in the registration document and coming
under the purview of Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923.”
42. Respondent Dalbir Singh (driver-cum-owner) on the other
hand has neither controverted testimony of witnesses examined
by insurance company w.r.t. number of persons travelling in the
Tempo against sitting capacity of 02 nor led any evidence for
disputing violation of policy condition. Insurer TATA AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall therefore be entitled to recover
compensation amount with interest from respondent Dalbir Singh
(driver-cum-owner).
43. FINDING : Issue No.2 is decided accordingly by holding
that R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall pay award
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 17 of 22
amount with interest to injured and shall be entitled to recover
the same from Dalbir Singh (driver-cum-owner).
RELIEF
44. Thus, in view of foregoing discussion & conclusion and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case,
award for a sum of Rs.37,800/- (Rupees Thirty Seven
Thousand & Eight Hundred only) along with interest @ 7.5%
p.a from the date of filing of DAR on 25.01.2017 till notice of
deposit under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC is passed in favour of
injured.
45. The above-said compensation amount with interest shall be
paid to injured by R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.
46. FORM-IVB
SUMMARY OF THE COMPUTATION OF AWARD
AMOUNT IN INJURY CASE TO BE INCORPORATED IN
THE AWARD
1. Date of accident : 20.11.2016
2. Name of the injured : Vijay Bahadur
3. Age of the injured : 49 Years
4. Occupation of the injured : Vegetable Vendor
5. Income of the injured : Rs.9,724/- (Minimum wage of
‘Unskilled Worker’ applicable in
Delhi w.e.f. 01.10.2016)
6. Nature of injury : Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken : JPN Apex Trauma Centre,
AIIMS, Delhi
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 18 of 22
8. Period of hospitalization : Nil
9. Whether any permanent : No
disability? If yes, give details.
10. Computation of Compensation
S. No. Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Expenditure on treatment -
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs.5,000/-
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs.5,000/-
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs.8,000/-
(v) Cost of artificial limb -
(vi) Loss of earning capacity -
(vii) Loss of income Rs.9,724/-
(viii) Any other loss which may require -
any special treatment or aid to the
injured for the rest of his life
12. Non-Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and -
physical shock
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
(iii) Loss of amenities of life -
(iv) Disfiguration -
(v) Loss of marriage prospects -
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, -
hardship, disappointment,
frustration, mental stress,
dejectment and unhappiness in
future life etc.
13. Disability resulting in loss of earning capacity:
(i) Percentage of disability assessed –
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 19 of 22
and nature of disability as
permanent or temporary
(Loss of amenities of loss of –
expectation of life span on account
of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning –
capacity in relation to disability
(iv) Loss of future Income – (Income x –
% Earning Capacity x Multiplier)
14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.37,724/-
rounded off to
Rs.37,800/-
15. INTEREST AWARDED
16. Interest amount up to the date of @ 7.5% p.a. from
award the date of filing
of DAR on
25.01.2017 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
17. Total amount including interest Rs.37,800/- +
interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date
of filing of DAR
on 25.01.2017 till
notice of deposit
under Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
18. Award amount released As per table given
below
19. Award amount kept in FDRs As per table given
below
20. Mode of disbursement of the By credit in the
award amount to the claimant(s). SB Account of the
injured
21 Next Date for compliance of the 26.09.2025
award.
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 20 of 22
47. The award amount shall be deposited by R2/TATA AIG
General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Account No.42709452600 of
MACT, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi at State Bank of
India, District Court Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi
(IFSC Code SBIN0011566 and MICR Code 110002483) through
RTGS/NEFT/IMPS within 30 days of the award as per section
168(3) of M.V. Act under intimation to the Nazir of this court
with proof of notice to the claimant/injured and his counsel.
48. Statement of injured Vijay Bahadur regarding financial
status, needs and liabilities has been recorded. In view of the said
statement and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the award amount shall be disbursed in following
manner:-
S. Name Status Amount of Release Amount
N Award Amount of FDR
o
1. Sh. Vijay Injured Rs.37,800/- + Rs.37,800/- Nil
Bahadur interest @ with
7.5% p.a. from proportionate
the date of interest in
filing of DAR MACT
on 25.01.2017 Claims SB
till notice of Account of
deposit under injured
Order XXI
Rule 1 CPC
49. Injured has mentioned details of Savings Bank Account
No.28070100005395 in Bank of Baroda, Jais, Rae Bareli (IFSC
Code BARB0JAISBS) in his statement recorded on 15.03.2023
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 21 of 22
and it is requested that award amount may be transferred in the
said SB Account.
50. Accordingly, Manager, State Bank of India, District
Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi is directed to
transfer Rs.37,800/- with proportionate interest in SB Account
No.28070100005395 in Bank of Baroda, Jais, Rae Bareli (IFSC
Code BARB0JAISBS).
51. R2/TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall inform the
injured/counsel regarding award amount being deposited in
MACT Account through registered post.
52. Copy of this award be sent to the Manager, SBI, District
Courts Complex, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi and Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Jais, Rae Bareli (IFSC Code BARB0JAISBS)
for information/compliance.
53. Dasti copy of award be given to Ld. Counsel for injured
and insurance company.
54. Ahlmad is directed to prepare separate miscellaneous file
to be listed on 26.09.2025 for filing compliance report.
55. File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed
by TARUN
TARUN YOGESH
Announced in the open Court YOGESH Date:
2025.08.21
on 19.08.2025 15:19:22 +0530
(Tarun Yogesh)
PO, MACT-01, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
MACT No.812017 Vijay Bahadur Vs. Dalbir Singh & Anr. Page No. 22 of 22