V N Bansal v. Sonia Arora & Anr

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awarded at Rs. 1,20,376/- along with 7.5% interest by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) vide award dated 27th October 2014 in MACP No. 182/13/14.

2. The accident occurred on 25th February 2013, when the claimant/Mr. V. N. Bansal (appellant herein) along with his wife, Smt. Dropti Bansal and two daughters-in-law, Smt. Meena Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal were going to Dade Dev Temple and had boarded a Delhi Transport Corporation (‘DTC’) bus. When they reached Sector 1, JJ Colony, Dwarka bus stand, all the family members got down from the bus and started moving close to the footpath for crossing the road through the zebra crossing. Suddenly, a Santro car bearing registration no. DL-4CR-3749 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’) driven by respondent no.1/Sonia Arora crashed into them, injuring Mr. V N Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal, while, Smt. Dropti Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal succumbed to their injuries subsequently.

3. A common award was passed on 27th October 2014. Aside from seeking enhancement of compensation, counsel for claimant, has agitated the issue regarding fastening 10% contributory negligence on the claimant/Mr. V. N. Bansal, as also the other injured/Smt. Poonam Bansal and deceased/Smt. Dropti Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal. For this, reference may be drawn to the assessment by the MACT particularly in paragraph nos.10 & 11 of the impugned award, which are extracted as under:

4. Mr. Shantnu Aggarwal, counsel for appellant/claimant, contends that the conclusion drawn by MACT that they ought to have been walking on the pavement, instead of the road and that they may have been engaged in talking to each other and failed to observe that they should be walking on the pavement, is mere speculation and not on the basis of any evidence. The issue of contributory negligence has neither been raised by the Insurance Company nor the driver/owner of the offending vehicle in the written statements. Cross examination has also not been done on this aspect.

5. In this regard, Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for appellant/claimant, has relied upon a decision of this court in New India Insurance Company v. Tanuj Sehrawat & Ors. 2026:DHC:324, where these aspects have been discussed and the Court has recorded as under: “24. Applying these principles, it is evident that the appellant/Insurance Company did not raise any plea of contributory negligence of the Railways before the MACT nor adduce any evidence to lay the foundation for such a defence. In these circumstances, the Tribunal correctly refrained from examining contributory negligence.”

6. The Court has also examined the site plan and notes that all four family members were just next to the footpath on what appears to be a 30-foot-wide road. On a perusal of the photographs which form a part of the Detailed Accident Report (‘DAR’) and have been appended, as also basis the site plan, it can be seen that road was 30-foot-wide, giving ample opportunity for any passerby to avoid any pedestrian who may possibly be walking adjacent to the footpath. The question of contributory negligence, therefore, cannot arise since it was not, as if the claimants were standing away from the footpath or were indulging in jaywalking. In fact, they had alighted from a DTC bus at the bus stop and were walking towards a point where they could cross the road through a zebra-crossing, hence, showing that they were careful in complying with the traffic rules.

7. Blood spots in the photographs clearly shows that the accident had happened just adjacent to the footpath. The site of the accident is not such, where it would be providing any motorable way for any vehicle, particularly, considering it was a 30-foot-wide road and there was ample space to pass by.

8. Considering these aspects and no evidence having been led, the MACT’s assessment is purely a speculation and cannot be sustained, therefore, the aspect of 10% contributory negligence is set aside in appeals arising out of the impugned award.

9. As regards the computation of compensation, Mr. Aggarwal, counsel for appellant/claimant, has drawn attention to the fact that, while the accident occurred on 25th February 2013, appellant/claimant, who was then 73 years of age, had been admitted to hospital and was discharged on 28th February 2013, as per Ex.PW1/3. Subsequently, in December 2013, he received treatment on account of his head injury, as is evident from Ex.PW1/6 (colly). Dr. Anshul Gupta, Neurosurgeon, has given a certificate stating that Mr. V.N. Bansal is under regular treatment for his head injury and is gradually recovering and would probably require further four to six months of treatment.

10. Medical bills have been filed which show that the treatment has thereafter continued. However, despite this, only Rs.40,000/- has been granted as non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering.

11. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decision of Supreme Court in K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, where the Supreme Court observed that “pain and suffering” cannot be captured by any fixed definition, drawing on legal, medical, and philosophical sources to emphasise its deeply subjective and life-altering nature. It recognised that translating such profound human loss into money is an inherently artificial exercise, yet courts must ensure fairness, consistency, and sensitivity to the victim’s lifelong deprivation. The Court stressed that in cases of severe or 100% disability, compensation must meaningfully reflect the permanent rupture in the victim’s physical, emotional, and existential well-being. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under: