MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 1 of 28

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 20

th

August 2026.

Pronounced on: 23

rd

September 2026.

Uploaded on: 24

th

September 2026.

# CNR No. DLHC015342602017

+ MAC.APP.1128/2017 & CMAPPL.19629/2022, CM

APPL.3327/ 2023, CM APPL. 3508/2024

DSC LTD (FORMERLY KNOW AS D S CONSTRUCTION

LTD) .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Vineet Tayal, & Ms.

Monalika Chaudhary, Advs.

versus

PRAVEEN SHARMA & ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. for R-1.

# CNR No. DLHC011395502018

+ MAC.APP. 499/2018

PRAVEEN SHARMA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv.

versus

DARSHAN SINGH & ANR (D S CONSTRUCTION LTD )

.....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vineet Tayal, & Ms.

Monalika Chaudhary, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

%

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. These cross-appeals have been filed assailing impugned award

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 2 of 28

dated 31

st

May 2017 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

[‘MACT/Tribunal’], Rohini Courts, Delhi in MACT Case No.

450395/2016 awarding compensation of Rs.37,19,000/- with interest at

9% per annum to Praveen Sharma [hereinafter, ‘claimant’] in relation to

an accident, which occurred on 20

th

April 2006. Since the vehicle was

uninsured, joint liability was fastened on Darshan Singh [hereinafter,

‘driver’] and DS Constructions Ltd. (now DSC Ltd.) [hereinafter,

‘owner’].

2. MAC.APP. 1128/2017 has been filed by the owner challenging the

finding of negligence arrived at by MACT on the ground that claimant

was unable to prove negligence on the part of offending vehicle.

Challenge has also been raised seeking reduction of quantum of

compensation. MAC.APP. 499/2018 on the other hand, are cross-

objections filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Incident

3. The accident occurred on 20

th

April, 2006 at 5:30 pm near Rajiv

Chowk, Gurgaon when the claimant, along with his elder brother was

travelling in a motorcycle bearing no. DL-4-SAK-5526. The motorcycle

was being driven by the claimant and his elder brother was seated as the

pillion rider. When they were travelling towards Gurgaon, a truck

bearing registration no. HR-55-B-6132 [hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’]

being driven in a rash and negligent manner allegedly collided with the

motorcycle driven by the claimant.

4. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries

on his back, stomach, legs along with other injuries. He was rushed to

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 3 of 28

Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon by his elder brother and unknown

persons.

Submissions by counsel

On negligence

5. Mr. Vineet Tayal, counsel appearing on behalf of the owner,

contended that the impugned award was based on a premise, which was

ex-facie erroneous and perverse.

6. He stated that the MACT decided the issue of negligence on the

basis that FIR was registered and chargesheet had been filed in the

criminal proceedings against driver of the truck and, therefore, in view of

the decision of Supreme Court in Bimla Devi Vs. HRTC (2009) 13 SC

530, a presumption of negligence can be made against the driver.

7. In his support, Mr. Tayal, relied upon the decision of Supreme

Court in Surender Kumar Arora v. Manoj Bisla, (2012) 4 SCC 552.

8. He further contended that the driver was acquitted in the criminal

proceedings by the 1

st

Class Magistrate, Gurgaon on 28

th

September

2011, therefore, the finding of MACT on the issue of negligence is

erroneous.

9. He stated that the acquittal in criminal proceedings was not

disclosed before the MACT, considering that the verdict had been passed

prior to the impugned award delivered by the MACT in 2017. He

submitted that the brother of claimant was the complainant in the said

proceedings, however, the acquittal of the driver was not brought to the

notice of MACT.

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 4 of 28

10. An application being CM No. 7207/2021 was filed by the owner

seeking to place on record the aforesaid judgment passed in the criminal

proceedings, which was allowed by the Court vide order dated 21

st

September 2021.

11. MACT relied upon the testimony of the claimant (‘PW1’) and his

brother-Raman Sharma (‘PW2’), however, the MACT did not evaluate

evidence and only relied upon PW2’s statement that the offending

vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without

following traffic rules and regulations.

12. As regards the testimony of PW1, Mr. Tayal contended that in his

cross-examination, he stated that he became unconscious immediately

after the accident and regained consciousness only after 2 to 3 days and

he had not seen the registration number of offending vehicle.

13. For this, he placed reliance upon the decision in Om Prakash

Nayar v. National Productivity Council, 1999 SCC OnLine Del 1071,

where the Court had observed that since the injured-claimant had

become unconscious immediately after the accident, therefore, no

reliance can be placed on his evidence as far as the factum of the

accident is concerned.

14. As regards the evidence of PW2, Mr. Tayal, submitted that there

were many contradictions in the testimony. PW2 had stated that the

offending vehicle was coming at very high speed, owing to which they

slowed down their motorcycle and moved to the side. It was further

stated that the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle from the back side.

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 5 of 28

15. In cross-examination, he negated his statement recorded in the FIR

by stating that he noticed the offending vehicle, only after it had hit the

motorcycle.

16. For this, he placed reliance upon the decision of Punjab and

Haryana High Court in Jasbir Kaur v. Mohan Singh & Ors. 1986 SCC

OnLine P&H 485, submitting that the statement made in an FIR cannot

be treated as substantial evidence.

17. Mr. Tayal, counsel for owner, submitted that the presence of PW2

at the site of accident was doubtful. PW2 had claimed that he was a

pillion rider and the offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle from

behind. Accordingly, there would be a presumption that he would have

graced the impact first and would have sustained injuries. However,

PW2 did not suffer any injuries, as admitted by him.

18. Moreover, PW2 also did not visit site of the accident with the

police. The Medico-Legal Certificate (‘MLC’) dated 20

th

April 2006

noted that the injured claimant was brought by an unknown person,

which would belie the claim of PW2 that he had taken his brother to the

hospital. PW1 was admitted in Pushpanjali Hospital and Dr. Subhrat

Saxena, examined as PW4, stated that he cannot say as to who got PW1

admitted.

19. Yet, another issue was taken up on the presence of PW2, wherein,

he had stated that his office was at Udyog Vihar, Phase-4, Gurgaon

which was located much before the place of accident and his office

timings were between 01:30 p.m. to 09:30 p.m., whereas, the accident

took place around 05:30 p.m. While, PW2 had stated that they were

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 6 of 28

going to their respective places of work, there was no reason as to why

he had crossed the area located much beyond his own office at 05:30

p.m.

20. Mr. Tayal, stated that the injured claimant’s office was located at

Hero Honda Chowk, which is located further beyond Rajiv Chowk, and

his office timings were 05:30 p.m. to 02:00 a.m. On this basis, Mr.

Tayal, submitted that there would be a presumption that PW2 would

have missed his office, which had started at 01:30 p.m. and had gone

towards the direction of his brother’s office and, therefore, crossed Rajiv

Chowk at 05:30 p.m.

21. There was no testimony of eyewitness to prove the alleged rash

and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle. Mr. Tayal,

submitted that the accident had taken place at 05:30 p.m. on 20

th

April

2006, during peak traffic hours and there would have been many

eyewitnesses to the accident, however, none were produced.

22. To this, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for claimant, submitted that no

evidence had been led by the owner before the MACT and they had only

cross-examined the witnesses presented by the claimant. Therefore, this

claim cannot be raised at this stage, considering that the owner did not

confront the claimant’s witness nor did they produce their own evidence,

in order to support their claim.

23. Mr. Gupta, submitted that the involvement of offending vehicle

has not been disputed, which is critical for the assessment of this matter.

The only issue raised concerns the manner of accident for which no

evidence has been led. The owner did not call the driver of offending

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 7 of 28

vehicle to the witness stand, to which, Mr. Tayal, responded that he

could not be traced.

24. Mr. Gupta, submitted that the testimony of PW1 was very clear

that he was driving the motorcycle, with his brother seated as pillion. In

his cross-examination, he stated that the registration number of offending

vehicle was noted by his brother and he had not seen the registration

number, since he became unconscious immediately after the accident.

25. Further, the question of the presence of brother of claimant (PW2)

at the hospital was absolutely beyond any doubt. Reliance was placed on

Ex.PW4/A (Colly.), which notes the admission form dated 20

th

April

2006 and bears the signature of Raman Sharma (PW2) on the consent

form. Mr. Gupta, therefore, submitted that it is beyond doubt that Raman

Sharma (PW2) was present there. On what basis, the MLC recorded an

‘unknown person’ cannot be ascertained. However, there may have been

a possibility that Raman Sharma (PW2) was taking care of other

formalities at that time, while during the state of emergency, some other

person had accompanied the claimant and was thus, recorded as

‘unknown’, since they chose not to give their name.

26. It was pointed out that the FIR had been registered immediately

the next day. Therefore, the question of implanting the vehicle or

otherwise cannot be accepted. The statements made in the FIR, thus,

assumed relevance.

27. As regards the issue of criminal proceedings, Mr. Gupta, drew

attention of the Court to the reasons given by the Magistrate for

acquittal. The Magistrate noted that the aspect of rash and negligent

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 8 of 28

driving could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the

accused was acquitted. This is quite different from the burden of proof

which has to be proved before the MACT, i.e. preponderance of

probabilities. Moreover, the involvement of offending vehicle was not in

question.

28. As regards the issue raised by Mr. Tayal, in relation to the

mapping of offices, Mr. Gupta, stated that the same is absolutely

irrelevant, as there can be no overarching presumption as to how they

were conducting their lives on that particular day. It was not the case that

they were not travelling in the direction of their offices while crossing

Rajiv Chowk, therefore, the assertion made by Mr. Tayal, is absolutely

untenable.

Quantum of compensation

29. Mr. Tayal, counsel for the owner, pointed out that the original

disability assessment was at 9% in relation to both lower limbs.

However, despite that, functional disability was taken at 100% relying

upon the testimony of Dr. Amitabh Yadav, City Hospital, Karol Bagh

(‘PW3’) and Dr. Subrat Saxena, Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon (‘PW4’).

30. It was pointed out that by order dated 02

nd

November 2023, this

Court noted that one of the primary issues was assessment of permanent

disability suffered by the claimant and with the consent of parties, the

claimant was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences

(‘AIIMS’) for assessment of his permanent disability.

31. Pursuant to the same, a report dated 12

th

February 2024 was

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 9 of 28

received, stating that he was diagnosed with pelvic fracture with bladder

and intestinal injury and his locomotor disability was assessed at 29.33%

temporary disability and that he was advised reassessment after 1 year.

Further, another certificate was placed by the claimant dated 29

th

August

2025, which stated that permanent disability was assessed at 49%

physical impairment in relation to his lower limb and pelvis.

32. Mr. Tayal, counsel for the owner, contested the production of both

the second certificate, as well as, the assessment made by the AIIMS

Medical Board on the first certificate, which was a huge leap from the

original assessment of 9%.

33. In his support, Mr. Tayal, relied upon the decision of Madras High

Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. G. Elango, 2008 SCC

OnLine Mad 1364.

34. To this, Mr. Gupta, counsel for claimant, stated that since the

report had been prepared by AIIMS Medical Board in February 2024,

reassessment had been sought after 1 year and the same had been done,

subsequent to which the second certificate had been produced.

Moreover, the assessment conducted by AIIMS Medical Board in

February 2024 had not been challenged by the owner in any manner

whatsoever, and a fresh ground was being raised at this stage.

35. Mr. Gupta, also pointed out to the collective testimony of PW3,

PW4 and PW5 providing the sequence of events after the accident, i.e. he

was first taken to Pushpanjali Hospital (as stated by PW3) where he was

operated multiple times, after which his treatment was carried out in City

Hospital, Karol Bagh (as stated by PW3) and subsequently his disability

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 10 of 28

certificate was produced by Deen Dayal Upadhayay Hospital (as stated

by PW5).

36. Mr. Gupta, therefore, contended that looking at his previous

injuries, the list of surgeries, periods of hospitalisation and photographs

along with the evidence from doctors, are enough to state that he was not

in a position to move and hardly in a position to work.

37. As regards the medical condition of claimant, Mr. Gupta, placed

reliance upon testimony of doctors who had treated the claimant. PW4

had stated that the claimant was admitted on 20

th

April 2006 with a

history of road traffic accident. He was bleeding profusely from perianal

region. His pulse and blood pressure were not recordable. His case was

diagnosed as ruptured urethral rectum. He was transfused blood and

operated on the same day. Laparotomy with rectal repair and ileostomy

was done and later on a fracture of the pelvis was also fixed. He was

transfused 42 units of blood and was discharged on 17

th

May 2006. He

was experiencing bedsores at the time of discharge and was asked to

come for a follow-up. He was again admitted on 29

th

September 2006 for

ileostomy, operated on 09

th

October 2006 and it was noted that the

condition of patient was very bad.

38. Claimant was referred to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 26

th

October

2006 as his condition was not satisfactory and he had developed faecal

fistula, which could not be managed. PW4 opined that because of

ruptured urethral sexual activities would be compromised in his entire

life and the cost of treatment of the patient in the future will be very

costly.

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 11 of 28

39. PW3 stated that the claimant was admitted on 27

th

October 2006

and remained at their hospital till 17

th

November 2006. He was operated

multiple times at Pushpanjali Hospital and later referred to Sir Ganga

Ram Hospital. He was kept in follow-up and reconstructive surgery was

done on 29

th

May 2009. The doctor opined that the outcome of his

injuries was of serious nature and he has lived an unproductive life till

today.

40. The treatment required highly skilled care and management. He

further opined that they could not comment upon the future

complications and; his reproductive life would have suffered from

fractured pelvic and ruptured rectum.

41. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, pointed out that the claimant had gone through

26 surgeries so far. The counsel for owner stated that money had been

withdrawn by claimant and enough money had been given to them,

though, the expenses incurred for continued treatment were not

proportionate.

42. In response to this, Mr. Gupta, drew attention of this Court to the

orders of this Court directing release of amounts.

43. On 22

nd

December 2017, the Court had directed deposit of 50% of

the awarded amount and no amount had been released.

44. On 01

st

February 2018, the Court had taken note of the condition

of claimant present in Court. It was noted that as per the chart of medical

treatment, he had undergone numerous surgeries and had remained in the

hospital for a very long time. The order of 22

nd

December 2017 was

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 12 of 28

modified and the balance 50% was directed to be deposited before the

Registrar General within a week. Further directions were given for

release of Rs.5,00,000/-.

45. On 16

th

July 2018, the Court directed further release of

Rs.5,00,000/- to meet the medical expenditure.

46. Thereafter, on 17

th

August 2018, the Registrar General of this

Court was directed to retain the balance amount in fixed deposit receipts

(‘FDR’) and monthly interest on the FDR was to be released to the

claimant.

47. On 19

th

May 2023, a request had been made for release of further

amounts, since the claimant was facing financial difficulties. The owner

had objected to the release of further amounts. However, the Court noted

that the impugned award itself showed that an expenditure of

Rs.15,00,000/- had been incurred towards its medical treatment.

Accordingly, another Rs.5,00,000/- was released. The claimant was

directed to file a detailed affidavit setting out the details of the medical

treatment being undertaken by him with the approximate costs thereof.

48. Pursuant to order dated 23

rd

January 2018, medical treatment

records had been filed by the claimant giving a detailed history of his

medical procedures. Various treatment records had been tabulated,

which is reproduced as under:

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 13 of 28

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 14 of 28

49. Further, Mr. Gupta, drew the Court’s attention to the photographs

of the claimant and his serious injury was evident in his pelvic region

and rectum.

50. As regards the contention raised by Mr. Tayal, counsel for owner,

that medical records detailing the expenses basis which the MACT had

awarded Rs.15,00,000/- were not placed on record, Mr. Gupta, has taken

the Court through the consolidated list of medical bills, which have been

filed, which form a part of the Lower Court Record (‘LCR’).

51. He also pointed out the testimony of PW1, who had stated in his

cross-examination that, he had denied the suggestion that the bills filed

by him did not have a corresponding prescription or that they were

forged and fabricated. He had further denied the suggestion that

expenses mentioned in his affidavit had not been incurred for his

treatment.

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 15 of 28

Enhancement

52. Aside from this, Mr. Gupta, counsel for claimant, pleaded

enhancement of compensation on various grounds.

52.1. He stated that future prospects at 40%, on loss of earning capacity,

which was granted at Rs.8,03,304/- had not been awarded.

52.2. His income had been taken at Rs.3,719/- by taking the minimum

wages, considering that the claimant had not been able to prove his

monthly income, despite having stated that he had been working as a

Senior Executive at Expert Serv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and he had produced

an appointment letter as well. MACT has noted that since he had not

been able to prove the said appointment, he would be entitled to

minimum wages of a matriculate.

52.2.1. Mr. Gupta, has pointed out that the claimant was pursuing

B.Com and was his in second year, for which the mark sheets and proof

from University of Delhi have been filed. Moreover, the claimant had

admitted that there was no employer from Expert Serv Solutions Pvt. Ltd

to prove the offer letter which had been propounded.

52.3. As regards future medical expenses, Mr. Gupta, stated that

pursuant to order dated 20

th

September 2022, an affidavit had indeed

been filed, which provides details of the amounts that have been

disbursed and amounts which have been spent.

52.3.1. It was stated that a total amount of Rs.23,92,216/-, including

interest, had been released in favour of the claimant, at that stage, out of

which the expenditure was Rs.23,75,000/-. Details of all the payments

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 16 of 28

were provided in the affidavit. It was also stated that the father of

claimant had borrowed money and taken loans for the payment of

medical expenses, since the claimant had been jobless since the date of

the accident.

52.3.2. It was also stated that the claimant was 37 years of age and his

entire bodily function had been completely disturbed. His health

condition was very poor and he was suffering from frequent motions due

to which, he could not visit anywhere and was compelled to remain at

home. It was stated that his parents were aged 64 years and 62 years and

were suffering from issues related to old age. However, his father had

still been taking care of him.

52.3.3. Yet another affidavit was filed on 09

th

August 2023 which was

filed in compliance of order of 19

th

May 2023, wherein, it was stated that

the money was being spent on a regular basis on medicines and

attendant. Further, they had engaged an attendant for full day care and it

was stated that the claimant requires a special diet throughout the day.

Accordingly, Mr. Gupta, stated that the claim for future medical

expenses is being made at Rs.15,00,000/- lumpsum.

52.4. Enhancement was also sought on various non-pecuniary heads.

53. In response to this, Mr. Vineet Tayal, counsel for the owner, stated

that medical expenses awarded at Rs.15,40,654/- was without any proof

and only on the testimony of claimant. MACT had noted in paragraph

26, that relying upon the statement made by PW3 and PW4, that,

‘petitioner/injured cannot stand on his own legs and also cannot take

food by himself or any liquid diet and for the whole life, he has to depend

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 17 of 28

upon other persons.’ The statement had been accorded to PW3, however,

no such statement had been made as per his testimony.

54. He further stated that loss of future income which had been

granted at Rs.8,03,304/- was disproportionate, considering that no proof

has been filed showing impact on his alleged employment.

55. He further pointed out order dated 02

nd

November 2023, where the

Court had asked the Medical Board of AIIMS to opine, whether the

claimant was in a position to have any employment, carry on his daily

routine activities on his own without help and his ability to carry out any

other vocation for earning a livelihood for himself. Mr. Tayal, pointed

out that the Medical Board had only certified the disability without

giving any opinion on the same.

Analysis

On Negligence

56. On the issue of negligence, Mr. Tayal, counsel for owner had

sought to persuade the Court that aside from acquittal of the driver of

offending vehicle in criminal proceedings, claimant has not been able to

prove that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of driver. As

noted above, the offending vehicle was an uninsured truck, which

crashed into the motorcycle driven by claimant, along with his elder

brother who was seated as a pillion rider.

57. Mr. Tayal raised a contention that MACT had decided the issue of

negligence on the basis that FIR had been registered and charge-sheet

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 18 of 28

had been filed, therefore, a presumption of negligence made would stand

eroded by the subsequent acquittal.

58. It is no longer res integra that the result of criminal proceedings

would not have a bearing on the determination of negligence by MACT

which is on preponderance of probabilities, since it involves a different

burden of proof.

59. In this regard, reliance could be placed on the recent decision of

Supreme Court in Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road

Transport Corporation and Ors. 2026 INSC 889 where the Court was

adjudicating upon the question of contributory negligence, along with

quantum of compensation. Relying upon the findings of Supreme Court

in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors.,

(2025) 2 SCC 599 and Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi & Anr.,

(2023) 13 SCC 510, the Court culled out principles for determination of

negligence in cases where the driver of offending vehicle has been

acquitted. Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under:

“20. We preface a few of the well-established

precedents in the adjudication of Motor Vehicle

Accident claims:

A. Police investigation records, including the FIR and

final Charge-Sheet, constitute valid, admissible, and

reliable prima facie evidence to establish rash and

negligent driving in MACT proceedings. Further, a

subsequent acquittal in a criminal case does not affect

the assessment of tortious liability under the MV Act.

B. Criminal proceedings and civil MACT Claim

Petitions operate in entirely distinct legal realms, as

the degree of “culpable rashness” required under

Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”)

is significantly higher than civil negligence under the

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 19 of 28

law of torts. The findings, quashment, or acquittals in

Criminal Court cannot control or dictate the outcome

of MACT proceedings, which must be evaluated

independently on civil standards.

…

21. The following principles can be laid out from the

above judgments:

A. Charge Sheet creates a prima facie case of

negligence.

B. Criminal acquittals do not displace this prima facie

civil liability.

C. Scene sketches showing post-impact vehicle

positions cannot be used to infer contributory

negligence against smaller vehicles.

D. High Courts cannot summarily overturn MACT

Awards without meeting the standard of

preponderance of probability in civil cases.”

(emphasis added)

60. Aside from the acquittal order itself, as perused by the Court, the

Judicial Magistrate had noted that the prosecution had not be able to

prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, involvement of the

offending vehicle had not been in question.

61. Moreover, not only the claimant, but his brother/Raman Sharma

who was riding as pillion had also provided his testimony as PW2. The

only assertion made by Mr. Tayal, in order discredit the testimony of

PW2 is extremely tedious and involves highly speculative assumptions.

The fact that the accident had taken place at 05:30 p.m. and PW2’s office

timings were between 01:30 p.m. to 09:30 p.m., therefore, he would not

have been present at the site of accident, is completely presumptive and

cannot take away from the fact that PW2 had chosen to be together with

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 20 of 28

his brother while going to his place of work, even though his office

timings were between 01:30 p.m. to 09:30 p.m.

62. Mr. Tayal’s submission that since PW2 was the pillion rider and

the offending vehicle had hit the motorcycle from behind, he would have

braced the impact and sustained injuries, is also highly assumptive and

without any basis. This also has to be considered in the context that the

owner chose not to lead any evidence nor was the driver of offending

vehicle called to the witness box.

63. Moreover, the involvement of offending vehicle has not been

disputed by the owner. No evidence has been placed on record in support

of their contention that there was contributory negligence. Other

contradictions as pointed out in PW2's testimony, in contrast to the

statement recorded in FIR, are not determinative of the accident having

not taken place due to the negligence of offending vehicle.

64. PW2 had clearly stated that he saw the offending vehicle come at

very high speed and they were hit by the offending vehicle when they

slowed down the motorcycle and moved to the side. The claimant (PW1)

had stated that he had become unconscious and regained consciousness

only after 2 to 3 days and therefore, could not identify the offending

vehicle immediately, except, must have done so based on the

information provided by his brother.

65. Presence of PW2 at the hospital has been clearly made out through

the Admission Form (Ex. PW4/A (Colly)) which bears his signature in

the consent form. While the MLC had recorded that the claimant was

‘brought in by an unknown person’, it could possibly be due to the

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 21 of 28

urgency and resultant disarray which occurs when an injured person has

to be rushed to the hospital and needs to be taken care of. PW2's

signature on the consent form proves beyond doubt that he was present

at the hospital. Moreover, FIR was registered immediately the day after

the accident, therefore, the question of implanting the offending vehicle

cannot be accepted.

66. Mr. Tayal, raised the issue that there was no eyewitness testimony

to prove rash and negligent driving. This plea is unsustainable, since in

most accidents it can be seen that eyewitnesses do not come forward.

Moreover, the testimonies of both PW1 and PW2 are relevant and are

corroborative regarding the facts of the accident, on account of travelling

on the same motorcycle.

67. In fact, Courts have held that in cases where there is no

eyewitness, presumptive element can be taken from the registration of an

FIR and filing of a charge-sheet. Lack of eyewitnesses does not mandate

that there can never be any finding of negligence as observed by the

Supreme Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

(2021) 1 SCC 171 wherein, the Court stated that non-examination of best

eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial cannot be a reason for

the Tribunal to not go ahead and determine the issue of negligence based

on material placed before it. In such situations, nothing can be provided

by the family of a deceased in terms of evidence, except for the facts of

the accident itself which usually form a part of the investigation by the

police.

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 22 of 28

68. The fact that burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt was not

achieved in the criminal proceeding, cannot take away the fact that an

FIR regarding the accident had been registered immediately thereafter

with the identification of the offending vehicle and post-investigation a

charge-sheet had also been filed, which had not been contested by the

owner. This view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in various

decisions, inter alia, Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Ltd. & Anr. 2025:INSC:600 and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam

Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497. Accordingly, Mr. Tayal’s plea that

negligence was not established is, therefore, untenable and rejected.

On Quantum of Compensation

69. As regards the issue of quantum of compensation, there are

various aspects which have been asserted by counsels for parties.

70. As regards the disability assessed by Medical Board, DDU, an

assessment was originally made at 9% permanent disability in relation to

both lower limbs. While considering the issue of assessment of

permanent disability, the Court vide order dated 02

nd

November 2023,

directed the claimant to be referred to All India Institute of Medical

Sciences (AIIMS) for assessment and a Medical Board to be constituted.

The Medical Board was also required to opine whether the claimant

would be in a position to be employed, carry on routine activities, carry

out any other vocation for earning a livelihood.

71. This resulted in a report dated 12

th

February 2024, which stated

that his temporary disability was assessed at 29.33% with advice of

reassessment after 1 year. He was diagnosed with pelvic fracture with

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 23 of 28

bladder and intestinal injury. Subsequently on 29

th

August 2025, a

certificate was issued by JPN Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, stating that

the claimant had suffered permanent disability of 49% in relation to both

lower limbs and pelvis.

72. Considering that there was a leap from 9% to 49% in the

assessment of permanent disability, Mr. Tayal, counsel for the owner

contested and sought to bring into question the assessment made by the

Medical Board. However, considering that no specific efforts were made

by the owner to challenge the expert assessment done by the Medical

Board, that too by AIIMS in February 2024 when the report was

produced, the assertion made by Mr. Tayal, counsel for owner, is merely

a ruse and without any basis. The second disability certificate was also

issued by AIIMS and considering that it is a government hospital and

there being no challenge to the same, the said shall be considered as

persuasive by the Court.

73. Moreover, as regards the nature of disability suffered, a few things

have been brought to attention of this Court by Mr. Pankaj Gupta,

counsel for claimant. First, the continued hospitalization at Pushpanjali

Hospital, followed in City Hospital and the referral to Sir Ganga Ram

Hospital. Mr. Gupta, also drew attention to the disability certificate

prepared by DDU. Second, the list of surgeries that the claimant

underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by him, i.e. about 26

surgeries. Third, the nature of disability that he suffered which is mostly

in the reproductive and urethral regions. Fourth, testimony given by

PW4 that his reproductive activity would be completely compromised

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 24 of 28

during his entire life and the cost of treatment would be extremely high,

has been taken note of by the Court.

74. A chart of medical treatment and surgeries has been provided by

the claimant, which has been reproduced above in paragraph 46. The

Court has also perused the photographs which have been placed on

record and takes note that nature of the injury, though, is not a loss of

limbs, but affects the claimant’s entire reproductive and urinary area,

which compromises the claimant in a very serious manner. The injuries

have deprived him of any ability to earn money for his livelihood or be

employed, considering that his permanent disability was ultimately

assessed at 49%. The Court, therefore, deems it fit to assess his

functional disability at 80% considering the impediment being faced by

him.

75. Another issue which was raised by Mr. Vineet Tayal, counsel for

the owner, is with respect to the medical expenses which have been

awarded at Rs.15,40,654/-. In response, Mr. Gupta, counsel for the

claimant took the Court through a consolidated list of medical bills.

Considering that the MACT had arrived at this finding by considering

the testimony of PW1 and rebuttal to any suggestion that they were

forged and fabricated, as also the nature of injuries sustained and the

surgeries which claimant underwent were sustained, the Court is not

inclined to displace the finding of Rs.15,40,654/- awarded towards

medical expenses.

76. An issue was raised by Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for claimant

regarding the notional income taken at Rs.3,719/-, on the basis of

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 25 of 28

minimum wages of a matriculate. While it was contended that he was

working as a Senior Executive in Expert Serv Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and an

appointment letter had been produced, claimant had failed to produce

any witness to testify and prove the same.

77. However, as regards his educational qualifications, he was

pursuing his B. Com., was 21 years of age on the date of accident and

was in his second year. Therefore, considering he was in the middle of

his graduation degree, this Court is inclined to consider the minimum

wages of a graduate, which will be taken at Rs. 4,031/-. Loss of future

income has not been awarded by the MACT, accordingly, future

prospects will be considered at 40% with a multiplier of 18 in view of

the decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs.

Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680.

78. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for claimant, further asserted that

compensation has not been awarded towards attendant charges and the

claimant requires full day care and special diet. Mr. Gupta, stated that

approximately an amount of Rs.23,00,000/-, including interest, had been

released in favour of the claimant and an expenditure of Rs.25,00,000/-

has already been incurred, details whereof have been provided in the

affidavit. It was also stated that the father of claimant had borrowed

money and had taken loans, since the claimant has not been working

since the date of accident. In this regard, an affidavit had been filed on

09

th

August 2023 in compliance of order dated 09

th

May 2023.

79. Considering the nature of disability, there is no reason why

compensation should not be awarded for an attendant. Accordingly, a

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 26 of 28

lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- will be awarded towards attendant

charges, rather than adopting the multiplier method, considering that this

is not a case of 100% disability, as assessed by this Court.

80. As regards non-pecuniary damages, loss of marriage prospects has

been awarded at Rs.10,00,000/- and loss of amenities have been awarded

at Rs.1,50,000/- which should sufficiently compensate the claimant on

these aspects and should be considered as one common component under

loss of amenities. Further, Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded towards pain

and suffering which ought to be enhanced, considering the nature of

surgeries undergone by the claimant, accordingly, the same will be

enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-.

81. Accordingly, the revised computation will be as under:

Sr.

No.

Heads Awarded by the

Tribunal

Awarded by

this Court

PECUNIARY LOSS

1 Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 15,40,654/- Rs. 15,40,654/-

2 Expenditure on conveyance

(B)

Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/-

3 Expenditure on special diet

(C)

Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 75,000/-

4 Expenditure on

nursing/attendant charges (D)

Nil Rs. 10,00,000/-

5 Income of injured (E) Rs. 3,719/- Rs. 4,031/-

6 Future prospects (F) Nil Rs. 1,612/-

7 Multiplier (G) 18 18

8 Functional disability (H) Nil 80%

9 Loss of future income/future

earnings [(E+F) x 12 x G x

H)] = I

Rs. 8,03,304/- Rs. 9,75,110/-

NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 27 of 28

10 Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/-

11 Loss of amenities and

marriage prospects (K)

Rs. 11,50,000/- Rs. 11,50,000/-

12 Total compensation (A + B +

C + D+ I + J+ K) = L

Rs. 37,19,000/-* Rs. 53,16,000/-

(Rs. 53,15,764/-

rounded off)

13 Interest awarded 9% 9%

*wrongly calculated by the MACT, the correct amount is Rs. 37,93,958/-.

Directions

82. For the aforesaid reasons, compensation has been enhanced by Rs.

15,97,000/- [“enhanced amount”].

83. Enhanced amount along with 9% interest per annum from the date

of filing the petition shall be deposited by the owner before the Registrar

General within a period of four weeks. It is directed that a lump sum

amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- shall be released to the claimant from the

deposit of enhanced amount within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Remaining enhanced amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept

in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 3

month, 6 months, 9 months and so on, in succession as maybe

calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the

designated Savings Bank Account of claimant. The amount of FDRs on

maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant

upon due verification.

84. By order dated 22

nd

December 2017, this Court had directed the

owner to deposit 50% of the originally awarded amount before Registrar

General. The owner was further directed to deposit the balance 50%

amount vide order dated 1

st

February 2018 and Rs. 5,00,000/- was

directed to be released to the claimant. An amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was

MAC.APP.1128/2017 & MAC.APP. 499/2018 Page 28 of 28

further released to the claimant vide order dated 16

th

July 2018. Vide

order dated 17

th

August 2018, the Court directed the Registrar General to

keep the remaining amount in an interest-bearing fixed deposit. A further

sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was directed to be released vide order dated 19

th

May 2023 for meeting medical expenses. Remaining amount, along with

accrued interest, from the originally awarded amount shall be disbursed

as per the directions of MACT.

85. Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of with above directions.

86. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

87. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the owner, only if

the order of deposit has been complied with.

88. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)

JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 23, 2026/MK/sm/sp