IN THE COURT OF JAGDISH KUMAR: PO:MACT­02 SOUTH­

WEST): DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI

MACT No. 1194/16

FIR No. 811/14
PS: DABRI

Guddu @ Sharvan
S/O Sh Kalu Ram
R/O A­21­A, Bindapur Extension,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi …… Petitioner

VERSUS
1.Sutesh Sunder
S/O Late G.K Sunder
R/O A­5/70, Sector­18,
Rohini New Delhi ( driver cum owner)
....Respondent

DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.03.2015

ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 15.04.2023
DATE OF AWARD : 17.04.2023

FORM – IV B
SUMMARY OF COMPUTATION OF AWARD AMOUNT IN INJURY
CASES TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE AWARD

1. Date of accident:­21.09.2014
2. Name of injured:­ Guddu @ Sharwan
3. Age of the injured:­ 45 years
4. Occupation of the injured:­ Business.
5. Income of the injured:­ 20,000/­ p.m
6. Nature of injury:­ Grievous
7. Medical treatment taken by the injured:­ Mata Chanan Devi Hospital N Delhi
DDU Hospital Delhi

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 1 of 11

8. Period of hospitalization:­ – Not disclosed.
9. Whether any permanent disability ? If yes, give details. No.

10. Computation of Compensation

S.No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal
11. Pecuniary Loss
(i) Expenditure on treatment Rs. 10,000/­
(ii) Expenditure on conveyance Rs. 5,000/­
(iii) Expenditure on special diet Rs. 5,000/­
(iv) Cost of nursing/attendant Rs. 5,000/­
(v) Loss of earning capacity Nil
(vi) Loss of income Nil
(vii) Any other loss which may require any special Nil
treatment or aid to the injured for the rest of
his life
12. Non­Pecuniary Loss:
(i) Compensation for mental and physical shock Rs. 15,000/­
(ii) Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/­
(iii) Loss of amenities of life Nil
(iv) Disfiguration Nil
(v) Loss of marriage prospects Nil
(vi) Loss of earning, inconvenience, hardships, As above.
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 nature of Nil
disability as permanent or temporary
(ii) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life Nil
span on account of disability
(iii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in Nil
relation of disability
(iv) Loss of future income – (Income X%Earning Nil
capacity X Multiplier)

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 2 of 11

14. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.60,000/­After
calculation
15. INTEREST AWARDED 7.5% per annum
16. Interest amount up to the date of compliance As per calculation
17. Total amount including interest As per calculation
18. Award amount released 25%
19. Award amount kept in FDRs 75%
20. Mode of disbursement of the award amount to Phased manner
the claimant (s) (Clause29)
21. Next date for compliance of the award. (Clause 10.05.2023
31)
FORM – V
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MODIFIED CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AGREED PROCEXDURE TO BE MENTIONED IN THE
AWARD

1. Date of the accident 21.09.2014

2. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating 20.03.2015
officer to the Claims Tribunal (Clause 2)
3. Date of intimation of the accident by the investigating N/A
officer to the insurance company. (Clause 2)
4. Date of filing of Report under section 173 Cr.P.C. before Not known
the Metropolitan Magistrate (Clause 10)
5. Date of filing of Detailed Accident Information Report 20.03.2015
(DAR) by the investigating Officer before Claims Tribunal
(Clause 10)
6. Date of Service of DAR on the Insurance Company (Clause N/A
11)
7. Date of service of DAR on the claimant(s). (Clause 11) 20.03.2015
8. Whether DAR was complete in all respects? (Clause 16) Yes
9. If not, whether deficiencies in the DAR removed later on? No
10. Whether the police has verified the documents filed with Yes
DAR? (Clause 4)
11. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the Yes. Directions are

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 3 of 11

 Investigating Officer? If so, whether any action/direction being issued as per
warranted? Hon'ble High Court
to all DCPs/CP,
Delhi.
12. Date of appointment of the Designated Officer by the Not known
insurance Company. (Clause20)
13. Name, address and contact number of the Designated ­do­
Officer of the Insurance Company. (Clause 20)
14. Whether the designated Officer of the Insurance Company No
submitted his report within 30 days of the DAR? (Clause
20)
15. Whether the insurance company admitted the liability? If N/A
so, whether the Designated Officer of the insurance
company fairly computed the compensation in accordance
with law. (Clause 23)
16. Whether there was any delay or deficiency on the part of the ­do­
Designated Officer of the Insurance Company? If so,
whether any action/direction warranted?
17. Date of response of the claimant (s) to the offer of the NA
Insurance Company. (Clause 24)
18. Date of the Award 17.04.2023
19. Whether the award was passed with the consent of the No
parties? (Clause 22)
20. Whether the claimant(s) were directed to open saving bank Yes
account(s) near their place of residence? (Clause 18)
21. Date of order by which claimant(s) were directed to open 21.02.2018
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 passbook of 21.01.2023
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 Claimant(s) (Clause R/O A­21­A,

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 4 of 11

 27) Bindapur
Extension,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi
24. Details of saving bank account(s) of the claimant(s) and the SB A/C
address of the bank with IFSC Code (Clause 27) No.50159927226
IFSC Code:
IDIB000B828 at
Indian Bank,
Bindapur
Extension, Uttam
Nagar, New Delhi
25. Whether the claimant(s) saving bank account(s) is near his Not known
place of residence? (Clause 27)
26. Whether the claimant(s) were examined at the time of No
passing of the award.
27. Account number, MICR number IFSC Code, name and Account No.
branch of the bank of the Claims Tribunal in which the 37665510911
award amount is to be deposited/transferred MICR Number:
110002483 IFSC
Code:
SBIN0011566
State Bank of
India, Sector­10,
Dwarka Courts
Complex Branch,
New Delhi

AWARD

1. The facts leading to pass the award are that Police has filed a Detailed
Accident Report (DAR) with respect to accident occurred on 21.09.2014.
Brief facts of the present case are that on 21.09.2014, at about 02.50 P.M,
the petitioner was coming to his house on his motorcycle from
Vikaspuri,New Delhi. When he reached at Jeewan Park, Som Bazar Road

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 5 of 11

 near Medical Store, New Delhi meanwhile a car bearing No. DL­3CA Q­
2833 came behind at a very high speed, being driven by its driver in rash
and negligent manner without any indicator and hit the petitioner from
behind. As a result of which petitioner received multiple injuries all over
his body. The Petitioner was taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital N Dehi
and thereafter shifted to DDU Hospital New Delhi where he got treatment
and also got treatment as outdoor patient from other hospitals and Doctors.
2. After completion of investigation, the police found the offending vehicle
being driven rashly and negligently and filed the DAR by indicated
respondent No.1 Sutesh Sunder as driver cum owner in the DAR. IO filed
'Detailed Accident Report' (DAR) before this tribunal on 20.03.2015 and
produced driver cum owner before this tribunal. The offending vehicle was
not insured. The DAR has been considered as application for claim.
3. The Respondent has contested the present case but has not filed any
reply/WS to the DAR.
4. After completion of the pleadings, following issues were framed on
22.11.2016:
1. Whether Guddu sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident dt.
21.09.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle ( Car) No.DL­3C
AQ 2833 being driven and owner by Sutesh Sunder? ...OPP.

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation , if so , what

amount and from whom? … OPP.

3. Relief.

5. In order to prove the present case, in PE, petitioner examined himself as

PW1. Respondent has examined himself as R1W1
6. I heard ld. counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner as well as Ld Cousnel
for respondent ( driver cum owner ) My issue­wise findings are as under:­
ISSUE No.1:­ Whether Guddu sustained injuries in a motor

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 6 of 11

 vehicle accident dt. 21.09.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle ( Car) No.DL­3C AQ 2833 being driven and owner by Sutesh
Sunder? ...OPP.

7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the petitioner. To prove the present
case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and in his affidavit (Ex. PW­
1/A), he has deposed that on 21.09.2014, at about 02.50 P.M, he was
coming to his house on his motorcycle from Vikaspuri,New Delhi. When
he reached at Jeewan Park, Som Bazar Road near Medical Store, New
Delhi, meanwhile a car bearing No. DL­3CA Q­2833 came behind at a very
high speed being driven by its driver in rash, negligent manner without any
indicator and hit him from behind. As a result of which he received
multiple injuries all over his body. He deposed that he was taken to Mata
Chanan Devi Hospital N Dehi and thereafter shifted to DDU Hospital New
Delhi where he got treatment .
8. PW­ 1 has been cross­examined. The testimony of witness with respect
to accident and rash & negligent driving of offending vehicle could not be
shaken/impeached. Even otherwise, the proof of negligence while
disposing off a claim under MACT, is not that strict as it is under Section
279/337/338 of IPC. The evidence which has come on the file can be
considered and becomes more relevant when there is no specific evidence
led by other side in rebuttal. Being injured, petitioner is natural eye­witness
of the case.
9. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents by
holding that petitioner suffered injuries in a vehicular accident due to rash
and negligent driving of car bearing No. DL­3CA Q­2833 by respondent.
ISSUE No.2:­ ? Whether the petitioners in the above mentioned cases are
entitled to compensation , if so , what amount and from whom?… OPP.
10. Being injured, petitioner is well within his rights to claim compensation. It

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 7 of 11

 is there on record, as per the deposition of PW­ 1 and the MLC annexed
with DAR, that he was taken to RTRM Hospital. It is deposed by him
(PW1) that due to the said accident, he himself and his family members
have suffered great mental pain, agony, love and affection, loss of income,
loss of social activities etc. So considering all the facts compensation is
awarded as under:
MEDICAL EXPENSES
11. The petitioner has not placed on record any medical bills. But it is a fact
that petitioner has remained on medication as revealed from MLC. He has
suffered injuries in his hand. Hence , seeing nature of injuries suffered by
petitioner, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/­ is granted to him towards
medical expenses.
LOSS OF EARNING
12. Though there is no leave record proved on record. The petitioner has also
not placed on record any document to show his income. He has suffered
only tenderness in his finger due to the accident. He has not proved on
record whether he had taken any medical rest due to this accident. So no
amount is granted to the petitioner for loss of earnings.
Attendant Charges , Conveyance and Special Diet.
13. There is no evidence except deposition of petitioner to verify that he
spent any amount towards attendant. But seeing the nature of injuries being
suffered by petitioner an amount of Rs.5,000/­ is being awarded for
attendant charges. Moreover, a sum of Rs. 5,000/­ for special diets,
Rs.5,000/­ for conveyance.
Pain and suffering
14. The next point that is to be discussed is pain and suffering and to calculate
the same, the nature of injuries caused to the injured due to the accident,

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 8 of 11

 duration for which he got medical treatment and he was constrained to live
in bed are few factors which must be taken into account. After the accident,
petitioner was taken Mata Chanan Devi Hospital for his treatment. It is
very much apparent that when a person is leading a normal life suddenly
meets with an accident which changes his complete life, the mental agony
which he faces cannot be considered. The whole life changes and
everything looks darker to that person which can be beyond out of
imagination, such a scenario could shake even braver of bravest. The
physical pain which petitioner had undergone after the accident cannot be
explained as to a miserable person every body sympathizes though it never
pacifies a victim. To compensate petitioner under this head, a sum of
Rs.20,000/­ is awarded to him.

Mental and physical shock:

15. The petitioner is 38 years of age at the time of accident , but due to this

mis­happening with him, all his dreams and expectations got completely
shattered which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. However, to
console him to an extent, a sum of Rs.15,000/­ is awarded to petitioner
under this head.
16. Thus making a total of 60,000/­/­, detail of which is given as under:­
(i) Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/­
(ii) Attendant charges Rs . 5,000/
(ii) Special diets Rs. 5,000/­
(iii) Conveyance Rs. 5,000/­
(iv) Loss of earning during treatment Nil
(v) Pain & suffering Rs. 20,000/­
(vi) Mental & physical shock Rs. 15,000/­

Total Rs.60,000/­

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 9 of 11

 17 This issue is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against
respondent by holding that accident in question took place due to rash or
negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.DL­3CAQ­2833 being driven by
respondent no.1 and petitioner suffered injuries in that accident and
petitioner is entitled for compensation.
18 This issue is therefore decided in favour of the petitioner and against
respondents by holding that petitioner is entitled for compensation from
respondent.
ISSUE No. 3 (RELIEF)
19 Petition in hands is allowed. Respondent is directed to pay Rs.
60,000/­ with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of DAR i.e.
24.04.2019 till the date of compliance to the petitioner as compensation in
this case, within 30 days from today. Amount of interim compensation (if
any) be deducted from this amount. The awarded amount shall remain as
tax free in view of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in case in R/Special
Civil Application No.4800 of 2021 titled The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs
Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) decided on 05.04.2022.
20 Considering circumstances of petitioner, 25% of the amount of
compensation be released to the petitioner by way of transferring the same
in his saving bank account. The petitioner would allowed to withdraw the
same through withdrawal slip only and by no other mode/modes i.e. ATM/
debit card/credit card/letter/NEFT/RTGS etc. It is directed that 75% of
amount of compensation be kept in the form of FDR in any nationalized
bank ( ie petitioner’s bank) in the name of petitioner for a period of one
year with cumulative interest.

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 10 of 11

 21 The salient features as pres cribed in the judgment in Rajesh Tyagi
Vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta FAO No. 842/2009 and MAC. App. No.
422/2009 decided on 07.11.2014 are to be applied:
(i) Original fixed deposit receipt be retained by the bank in safe custody.
However, the original passbook shall be given to the claimant along with the
photocopy of the FDR.
(ii) The original fixed deposit receipt be handed over to the claimant at the end
of the fixed deposit period.
(iii) Photo identity card shall be issued to the claimant and the withdrawal
shall be permitted only after due verification by the Bank of the identity card
of the claimant.
(iv) No cheque book/ATM/debit card/credit card shall be issued to the
claimant without permission of the Court.
(v) No loan, advance or withdrawal or pre­mature encashment shall be allowed
on the fixed deposit without permission of the Court.
22. Respondent is directed to deposit entire amount of compensation with
this tribunal, within 30 days from today, with advance notice to petitioner.
23. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (JAGDISH KUMAR )
COURT ON 17.04.2023 PO, MACT­02 SOUTH
WEST, DWARKA,
NEW DELHI

MACT No. 1194/2016 Guddu vs Sutesh Sunder Page No. 11 of 11