Dismissed¶58

United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Badal

Delhi HC8 Dec 2025MAC.APP./784/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC.APP. 784/2025, United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Badal, High Court of Delhi (Prateek Jalan, J.), decided 08.12.2025 — motor accident compensation; contributory negligence; boarding a moving bus; chargesheet sufficient to prove driver's negligence; Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497; discharge summary history; minimum wages Delhi versus Uttar Pradesh; unskilled worker; DTC bus DL-1PC-8729; FIR No. 97/2020 P.S. Raj Park; Sections 279 and 337 IPC; amputation of both legs; award Rs.1,13,47,044/- with 9% interest; appeal dismissed; refund of statutory deposit Rs. 25,000/-.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the appeal alongwith the pending application is dismissed and the Tribunal's award stands; statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- to be refunded to the Insurance Company. ¶58

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Badal — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the appeal alongwith the pending application is dismissed and the Tribunal's award stands; statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- to be refunded to the Insurance Company.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal erred in holding the Insurance Company liable without a finding of negligence/contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who allegedly boarded a moving bus. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

The Tribunal committed no error in holding the Insurance Company liable without a finding of negligence/contributory negligence on the part of the claimant; the filing of a chargesheet against the driver of the insured vehicle, at least in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, is itself sufficient to establish the driver's negligence.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The doctor's recording in the second discharge summary (December 2020) that the claimant slipped while stepping on a moving bus is insufficient to arrive at a finding of negligence on the part of the claimant, particularly as the first discharge summary (February 2020) records no such history, the FIR statement supports the claimant's version, and no evidence of the claimant's negligence was led before the Tribunal; factual issues fall to be assessed on a preponderance of probabilities.

¶50

Key takeaways

Although the claimant was a permanent resident of Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh, his statement to the police (in the FIR/Detailed Accident Report) showing residence in Delhi for 7-8 months prior to the accident was sufficient to uphold assessment of compensation on the basis of minimum wages in Delhi.ratio¶57
Even absent documentary proof of the identity of the employer or the quantum of wages, the Tribunal correctly assessed compensation on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in Delhi.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims appeal by insurer against Tribunal award dated 04.10.2024 (MACT Case No. 46/21 & 110/22) of Rs.1,13,47,044/- with 9% interest for a 16.02.2020 accident in which the claimant, while boarding a DTC bus (DL-1PC-8729) at Mangolpuri, fell and suffered amputation of his left leg above the knee and right leg below the knee. Held: (i) no error in fastening liability without a finding of contributory negligence — the claimant's contemporaneous FIR statement resulted in a chargesheet against the driver, which suffices to establish negligence absent compelling contrary evidence (relying on Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497); the history in the second discharge summary (06.12.2020) that he 'slipped off while stepping on a moving bus' is insufficient, the first discharge summary recording no such history, and no evidence of the claimant's negligence was led; (ii) though permanently resident in Bulandshahar (UP), the claimant's proved residence and work in Delhi for 7-8 months before the accident justified assessment on Delhi minimum wages for an unskilled worker despite absence of documentary proof of employment. Appeal and pending application dismissed; statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- refunded to the insurer.

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 08.12.2025

¶3

- MAC.APP. 784/2025 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Manuj Aggarwal and Mr. Kushagr Tyagi, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

BADAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶7

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 77197/2025 (for exemption)

¶8

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶9

The application stands disposed of.

¶10

CM APPL. 77198/2025 (for condonation of delay in re-filing)

¶11

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing of the captioned appeal.

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay of 260 days in re-filing is condoned.

¶13

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶14

CM APPL. 77195/2025 (for condonation of delay in filing)

¶15

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the captioned appeal.

¶16

For the reasons stated in the application, and with the consent of Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, the same is allowed, and the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

¶17

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 11:27:34

¶20

MAC.APP. 784/2025 Page 1 of 7

¶21

MAC.APP. 784/2025 & CM APPL. 77196/2025 (for stay)

¶22

The present appeal is filed by the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”], against an award dated 04.10.2024, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] in MACT Case No. 46/21 & 110/22. 2. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,13,47,044/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum, to the respondent – claimant, arising out of a road accident which took place on 16.02.2020.

¶23

The facts of the accident, as extracted in the impugned award, are that the claimant was standing at a bus stop in S Block, Mangolpuri, waiting for a bus going to the residence of his maternal uncle in Sultanpuri. A bus operated by Delhi Transport Corporation [“DTC”], bearing registration No. DL-1PC-8729 [“insured vehicle”], arrived at the bus stop, from which some passengers alighted. While the claimant was in the process of boarding the bus, with one foot on the footstep and the other foot on the road, he alleged that the bus driver suddenly drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the claimant falling onto the road. The rear wheel of the bus ran over both his legs, due to which he sustained grievous injuries.

¶24

The claimant was first taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi, and was thereafter referred to Safdarjung Hospital. He was hospitalised from 17.02.2020 to 13.03.2020, and again from 19.11.2020 to 06.12.2020. It is undisputed that the claimant’s injuries have resulted in amputation of his left leg above the knee and the amputation of his right leg below the knee.

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 11:27:34

¶27

MAC.APP. 784/2025 Page 2 of 7

¶28

I have heard Mr. Manuj Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant, who is present on advance notice.

¶29

The relevant records of the Tribunal, including the evidence of the witnesses, have also been annexed to the appeal.

¶30

Mr. Aggarwal urges two grounds in support of the appeal:

¶31

a. That the Tribunal ought to have considered that the accident occurred as a result of the negligence of the claimant himself and, at the very least, ought to have reduced the compensation awarded on account of contributory negligence of the claimant.

¶32

b. That the Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation to the claimant on the basis of minimum wages prevalent in Delhi, instead of minimum wages prevalent in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶33

With regard to the negligence/contributory negligence of the claimant, Mr. Aggarwal relies upon a discharge summary prepared at Safdarjung Hospital after the second hospitalisation of the claimant, when he was being discharged on 06.12.2020. In the history recorded in the said discharge summary, the doctor has recorded as follows:

¶34

“Pt. was apparently well before 16.02.2020 when suddenly he slipped off while stepping on a moving bus in Mangolpuri…..”

¶35

Mr. Aggarwal submits that this history, as recorded in the medical document, shows that the claimant himself was stepping on a moving bus at the time of the injury.

¶36

As against this recording in the discharge summary prepared in December 2020, the discharge summary prepared after the claimant’s first hospitalisation in February 2020, does not record any such history.

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 11:27:34

¶39

MAC.APP. 784/2025 Page 3 of 7

¶40

Further, the contents of the FIR [FIR No. 97/2020, P.S. Raj Park, Delhi, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860] recorded the day following the accident, i.e. 17.02.2020, records the statement of the claimant as follows:

¶41

It is evident from the above that in his statement to the police authorities immediately after the accident, the claimant mentioned that he

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 11:27:34

¶44

MAC.APP. 784/2025 Page 4 of 7

¶45

was wating for the bus; upon arrival of the bus, some passengers alighted; and thereafter, he attempted to board from the rear side door. However, when he had placed his foot on the footrest, the bus driver suddenly drove the bus, as a result of which his foot slipped off the footrest and he fell. 11. It is undisputed that, following the aforesaid FIR, criminal proceedings were instituted against the driver of the insured vehicle, and a chargesheet was filed before the concerned Criminal Court. 12. The claim petition filed by the claimant also contains the same narrative of the incident, as does the affidavit of evidence filed by the claimant, who gave evidence as PW-1. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the claimant denied the suggestion that he was trying to board a moving bus when the accident occurred, or that the accident occurred due to his own negligence. 13. The impugned award records that no evidence was produced on behalf of the Insurance Company. 14. In light of this evidence, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the Insurance Company liable, without a finding of negligence/contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The claimant’s original statement to the police authorities resulted in the filing of a chargesheet against the driver of the insured vehicle. The filing of a chargesheet, at least in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, is itself sufficient to establish negligence of the driver, as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in several decisions. In a recent decision in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb¹ , the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 11:27:34

¶48

MAC.APP. 784/2025 Page 5 of 7

¶49

“ 4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver. ”

¶50

As far as the evidence is concerned, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the claimant. The first discharge summary does not indicate that the claimant was boarding a moving bus at the time of the accident. The recording of the doctor, to this effect, in the second discharge summary is insufficient to arrive at a finding of negligence on the part of the claimant. Quite apart from the fact that a chargesheet was filed against the driver of the insured vehicle, no evidence establishing negligence on the part of the claimant was led by the claimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s task is to assess factual issues on a preponderance of probabilities, which, in my view, it has done correctly. 16. Turning now to the second issue, i.e. the quantum of income on the basis of which compensation ought to have been assessed, it is the undisputed position that the claimant was a permanent resident of Bulandshahar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, the Tribunal has assessed loss of income on the basis of minimum wages prevalent in Delhi, in view of the claimant’s evidence that he was living and working in Delhi.

¶51

In the claimant’s statement recorded before the Tribunal, he revealed that his monthly income was Rs. 20,000/-, and that he was employed as a Sales Executive in “ Riyansh Selection ”, situated at X- 3/B1, Gali No. 2, Bhrampuri, Delhi. This was reiterated in the affidavit of

¶52

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497.

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Signed By:SOMYA SATIJA Signing Da te:1 0.12.2025 11:27:34

¶55

MAC.APP. 784/2025 Page 6 of 7

¶56

evidence filed by him. In his cross-examination by learned counsel for DTC, he stated that he did not have any document regarding his employment with Riyansh Selection. He was not cross-examined on this aspect by learned counsel for the Insurance Company. It may be noted that in the affidavit of evidence filed by the claimant, he stated both his present address in Delhi and his permanent address in Bulandshahar.

¶57

Significantly, the statement of the claimant before the police authorities [extracted in the FIR quoted above], included in the Detailed Accident Report, shows that he was living in Delhi for 7 to 8 months prior to the accident. This evidence, in my view, is sufficient to uphold the award of compensation on the basis of minimum wages in Delhi. Although the claimant was a permanent resident of Bulandshahar, the evidence placed before the Tribunal shows that he had been residing in Delhi for a considerable period prior to the accident. Even if he was unable to prove, by way of documentary evidence, the identity of his employer or the quantum of his wages, the Tribunal correctly assessed compensation on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled person in Delhi.

¶58