Vikash vs Varsha Gupta
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 12 October 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010128562025
+ MAC.APP. 172/2025 & CM APPL. 14736/2025
VIKASH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Shivam Sharma, Mr. Rakesh
Upadhyay and Mr. R.K Rathee, Advs.
versus
VARSHA GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by the driver of the offending vehicle
th
assailing the impugned award dated 17 January 2025 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], Central District, Tis Hazari
Courts in MACT No.490/2023, whereby compensation of Rs.3,40,385/-
along with interest @ 8% was awarded (‘ impugned award ’).
th
2. The accident occurred on 05 December 2022, when Varsha Gupta ,
the claimant, aged 27 years, was travelling on a scooter with her
daughter, Vani Gupta , riding pillion. When they reached Vivekanand Puri
Chowk , a taxi bearing registration No. DL-1ZA-8322, coming from the
direction of Itwar Chowk at a high speed and being driven rashly and
negligently, collided with her scooter. The driver/appellant, Vikash , in fact,
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 172/2025 Page- 1/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:33:04
took the claimant to Jeevan Mala Hospital in his car. She had sustained
fractures of the tibia and fibula and was subsequently shifted to Ganga Ram
Hospital , where she remained admitted for five days before being discharged.
3. A separate claim petition was filed on behalf of the daughter, in which
the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 45,000/-, along with interest @8% per
annum. Since the said award was not challenged in appeal, the amount has
already been paid by the driver/appellant.
4. As regards the present claim, the driver has filed this appeal
challenging the award on various grounds, including contributory negligence,
the quantum of compensation, and the claimant’s lack of a valid driving
licence.
5. It is, however, noted that the MACT fastened liability jointly and
severally upon the driver and the owner of the vehicle. The owner has not
preferred any appeal, as informed by Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for the
claimant. Accordingly, the claimant has initiated execution proceedings for
recovery against the owner. However, since a stay was granted by this Court
th
vide order dated 11 March 2025, subject to the appellant/driver depositing
50% of the awarded amount, the execution proceedings are not proceeding
ahead.
6. In these circumstances, on an application being CM.APPL.
th
12147/2026 moved by appellant, the Court had clarified on 24 July 2026 that
execution to the extent of 50% against the driver would remain stayed.
However, the execution against the owner can proceed ahead.
Appellant/driver had also deposited 50% of the awarded compensation
th
pursuant to directions passed by this Court on 11 March 2025 with the
Registrar General of this Court.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 172/2025 Page- 2/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:33:04
7. The issues, which have been contested between the parties, are dealt
with as under:
7.1. Mr. Shivam Sharma , counsel for appellant, submits that the injured
claimant admitted that she did not possess a valid driving license on the date
of the accident and, therefore, contributory negligence ought to have been
attributed to her . Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for claimant, submits that the
driver did not enter the witness box before the MACT and, therefore,
contributory negligence, if any, was required to be proved by evidence, which
was not done. He further submits that the absence of a driving licence, even in
the case of minors, has been held not to warrant a reduction in compensation,
apart from constituting a violation of the statutory provisions governing the
use of roads. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Reliance
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Kusum and Ors. , 2026:DHC:6915,
wherein it was held that a mere violation of law by the victim does not, by
itself, constitute contributory negligence. There must be a causal connection
between such violation and either the occurrence of the accident or the impact
or injury suffered by the victim. Accordingly, the plea of contributory
negligence on this ground is untenable.
7.2. Another plea of contributory negligence has been raised on the basis of
the site plan. It is contended that the accident occurred due to the claimant's
own fault, as the offending vehicle was travelling on the main road and the
claimant ought to have entered the intersection in a proper and careful
manner. However, in the absence of any evidence led by the driver, who did
not testify before the MACT, contributory negligence has not been
established. Reliance on the site plan alone is insufficient, as the plan is vague
and does not clearly indicate the movement of the two vehicles
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 172/2025 Page- 3/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:33:04
7.3. Mr. Shivam Sharma , counsel for the appellant, challenges the amount
of Rs. 83,947/- awarded towards medical expenses, comprising Rs. 59,947/-
towards medical bills and Rs. 24,000/- towards physiotherapy expenses. In
respect of the medical expenses, the claimant stated that, although her total
medical expenditure was approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- , the same was covered
under a Mediclaim policy, leaving approximately Rs. 60,000/- uncovered.
However, insofar as the physiotherapy expenses are concerned, a single bill
for Rs. 24,000/-, calculated at Rs. 800/- per day for 30 days, was produced.
The bill did not bear any date and was not duly proved.
7.4. To this extent, the Court is inclined to agree with the appellant. The
bill, reproduced below, does not bear a date and purports to cover all 30 days
collectively. Accordingly, its reliability is doubtful. Further, the claimant
neither led any evidence before the MACT to substantiate these expenses nor
placed on record any prescription indicating that regular physiotherapy had
been advised.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 172/2025 Page- 4/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:33:04
7.5. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 24,000/- awarded towards
physiotherapy expenses, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall be
refunded to the appellant.
7.6. The appellant has also challenged the award of Rs. 35,000/- each under
the heads of conveyance , special diet and attendant charges . The testimony of
PW-1 does not disclose any supporting evidence in this regard, apart from her
statement that she had incurred Rs. 25,000/- each towards conveyance,
special diet and attendant charges. This aspect, therefore, also requires
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 172/2025 Page- 5/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:33:04
reconsideration.
7.7. As per the discharge summary, the claimant was discharged after five
days of hospitalization following treatment for the fractures. The discharge
summary of Ganga Ram Hospital records that she underwent open reduction
rd
and internal fixation with plating and bone graft for distal 3 tibia fracture
rd
and plating for distal 3 fibula fracture. Accordingly, considering the nature
of the injuries and the treatment undergone, the amounts awarded under the
heads of conveyance , special diet and attendant charges are reduced to Rs.
25,000/- each, as claimed by the claimant. Consequently, an amount of Rs.
10,000/- under each of these heads, aggregating to Rs. 30,000/- , shall be
refunded.
7.8. Insofar as the loss of income is concerned, the MACT adopted the
minimum wages applicable to a graduate, amounting to Rs. 22,146/- per
month, and awarded loss of income for three months. The claimant stated that
she was working as a makeup artist. In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary led by the driver, the assessment of loss of income made by the
MACT is reasonable and warrants no interference.
8. The revised compensation shall be as under:
S. no. Heads Awarded by the
Awarded by
Tribunal
this Court
PECUNIARY LOSS
1. Expenditure on Medical
Bills and physiotherapy (A)
Rs. 83,947/- Rs. 59,947/-
2. Expenditure on conveyance
(B)
Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
3. Expenditure on special diet Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
4. Attendant Charged (C) Rs. 35,000/- Rs. 25,000/-
5. Income of injured per
month(D)
Rs. 22,146/- Rs. 22,146/-
6. Loss of income (E) Rs. 66,438/- Rs. 66,438/-
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 172/2025 Page- 6/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:33:04
NON-PECUNIARY LOSS
7. Pain and suffering (J) Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
8. Loss of amenities of life and
future prospects (K)
Rs.35,000/- Rs.35,000/-
9. Total compensation (A + B
+ C + I+ J+ K) = (L)
Rs. 3,40,385/- Rs. 2,86,385/-
10. Interest awarded 8% per annum 8% per annum
11. Reduced compensation Rs. 54,000/-
9. Accordingly, the compensation is reduced by Rs. 54,000/-. (‘ reduced
compensation ’)
th
10. This Court vide order dated 11 March 2025 directed the appellant to
deposit 50% of the awarded amount with the Registrar General of this Court.
The deposited amount was directed to be kept in an interest bearing fixed
deposit in auto renewal mode.
11. The appellant is directed to deposit the revised compensation, after
deducting the reduced amount from the original compensation, along with the
accrued interest thereon, before the Registrar General of this Court. The
amount deposited shall be released to the claimant, along with the accrued
interest, as a lump sum in her designated savings bank account.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
14. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Insurance Company/owner
only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
15. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 12, 2026/mk/ zb
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 172/2025 Page- 7/7
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:04.11.2026
10:33:04