ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd vs Satish Chandra Gupta & Ors

Sr No. Title Page No.

The Accident 2

Submissions on behalf of 3

appellant/Insurance Company

➢ Vehicle being driven by injured 3

claimant

➢ No cover under the Insurance Policy 4

➢ Agony of the moment 5

➢ Quantum of compensation 6

Submissions made on behalf of respondent 6 no.1/injured claimant

➢ Vehicle not being driven by injured 7 claimant

➢ Injured claimant travelling as an 8 occupant

Analysis 8

➢ Claimant travelling as an occupant 9

➢ Cover under the Insurance Policy 12

➢ Agony of the Moment 17

➢ Quantum of compensation 33

Conclusion 35

Anish Dayal, J.

This appeal deals with an interesting question of law, whether the driver of a vehicle shall be held liable for negligence, where an accident occurred due to the sudden appearance of a stray animal on the road and the driver being faced with a dilemma due to the ‘agony of the moment’. 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned award dated 26^th May 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT/Tribunal’], Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in MACP No.44/2015 awarding compensation of Rs.1,70,86,530/- along with 12% interest in relation to an accident that occurred on 28^th May 2014.

Sh. Satish Chandra Gupta (hereinafter, ‘injured claimant’), was travelling home to Chhattarpur from Dwarka and was seated on the rear seat of vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1TAP-5773 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’), driven by respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati (‘driver’), allegedly in a negligent manner. When they reached Vasant Kunj, near Chhattarpur Metro station the driver lost control of the offending vehicle and dashed into a divider, due to which the injured claimant sustained grievous injuries. The vehicle was owned by respondent no.3/M/s Centrodorstroy India Pvt. Ltd. (‘owner’).

The injured claimant suffered grievous injuries and was in Coma since the date of his accident, till his passing away on 22^nd August 2020. Dr. Akhilesh Singh, Physician, Consultant General Medicine and Critical Care Medicine (‘PW9’) stated that the injured claimant was a case of severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy GCS ElMl VT.

Mr. Ishaan Chhaya, counsel appears for appellant/Insurance Company and challenges the award on the grounds of negligence and compensation awarded. These are elaborated as under:

Case summary of the hospital dated 13^th June 2014, recorded that the injured claimant, “was driving the car and suddenly hit a roadside pole” and there was no mention of the driver’s name in the FIR. Moreover, if the injured claimant had been driving, he was doing so without a driving license, therefore, principles enunciated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 would apply.

The Insurance policy, which was a Package Policy in this case, was valid from 24^th May 2014 to 25^th May 2015 and was governed by the Indian Motor Tariff, 2002. The schedule records basic third-party premium and IMT 28 cover (for paid driver). IMT 29 alone covers employees travelling or driving in an employer's car on premium being paid, which had not been taken.

Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Madras High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Krishnan, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 28835, which concerned an employee travelling in the employer company's vehicle, being driven by the driver. In that case, insurer was exonerated and the whole liability was placed on the employer for want of IMT-29 premium. Reliance has also been placed on Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (‘IRDA’) circulars of 2009, which stated that such policies do not cover employee-occupants and there was a specific exclusion.

Since, the injured claimant was the director of respondent no.3/owner (insured), and respondent no.2/driver had been assigned by Manager of the Company, therefore, the injured claimant would fall within the bracket of employees, since he was commuting in an employer-provided transport within the course of employment. Reliance has been placed on Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1534 and General Manager, BEST Undertaking, Bombay v. Mrs. Agnes AIR 1964 SC 193.

Mr. Chhaya, submitted that an occupant of private car is not a statutory third party and if, he had been driving or was in control, he would step in shoes of the owner. Reliance in this regard was placed on Ningamma & Anr. vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2009) 13 SCC 710 and Manjusha v. United India Assurance Company Limited, 2025:INSC:896. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (‘IRDAI’) circular dated 18^th October 2023, issued pursuant to the directions of Madras High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ilakkiyamathi CMA 2166/2019 provided that compulsory cover of IMT-29 shall be provided as an inbuilt coverage in the package policy.

Mr. Chhaya, states that the injured claimant was unable to prove rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2/driver, which is essential for a claim filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’). There were no eyewitnesses to the accident and it had been admitted by PW1, PW3 and PW8 that they had not witnessed the accident.

No evidence had been placed on record with reference to the speed, skid or mechanical condition of the offending vehicle. Both respondent no.2/driver and PW3 testified that a dog had suddenly come in front of the car, which then dashed against the divider while trying to save the dog. It was submitted that having faced the ‘sudden danger’, not of his own making and having acted as a prudent person, it was not his negligence.

Reliance in this regard has been placed on decision of Supreme Court in Manjusha (supra) where, in case of a tyre bust, the driver was held to not be negligent. Further reliance has been placed on Syed Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30, where, the vehicle had swerved in order to avoid collision with a child. Reliance has been placed on Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Lakshman Iyer & Anr. (2003) 8 SCC, 731 to state that negligence is the want of care demanded by the circumstances.

It was submitted that, respondent no.2/driver would not be considered rash and negligent, if the plea of the accident having taken place due to the dog is accepted. Further, preponderance of probability does not dispense with evidence, therefore, filing of charge-sheet will not prove the manner of accident. Reliance has been placed on Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1700.

Mr. Chhaya, submitted that attendant charges had been awarded twice; and the Tribunal in paragraph 44 of the impugned award had noted that an amount of Rs. 33,00,000/- towards future medical treatment and attendant charges for 6 months with effect from 1^st March 2016, was directed to be refunded, in case, the injured claimant expired during the said period. Further, the affidavit of the wife of injured claimant/Smt. Neena Chandra Gupta as regards the amounts withdrawn by her was contrary to the testimony given as PW8.

Mr. Naresh Gupta, counsel appears on behalf of respondent no.1/injured claimant, countered the submissions made by Mr. Chhaya. These are elaborated as under:

Mr. Gupta, contends that the plea raised by appellant/insurance company that the offending vehicle was being driven by the injured claimant and not by driver, is self-assumed and pure imagination, contrary to record.

Vinay Tiwari (‘PW3’), an independent witness, was driver of the ambulance, who had discovered the injured claimant at the scene of accident and had taken him to the hospital. He had stated that the injured claimant was lying unconscious in rear seat of the car and had been taken out of the car and transferred to the ambulance. Respondent no.2/driver-Sanjay Bhati (‘R1W1’) had stated that he was the driver of offending vehicle, which also resonates with the Detailed Accident Report (‘DAR’) filed by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’), confirming the same.

Naveen Kumar (‘R3W3’), witness of appellant/Insurance Company, stated that the injured claimant had been taken to hospital in a PCR Van, however, the same had been falsified by evidence on record.

The statement of Surinder Singh Yadav, Manager of respondent no.3/Company, was recorded by the police and filed along with DAR, noted that the offending vehicle was under use and control of respondent no.2/driver- Sanjay Bhati. For assessment on preponderance of probabilities, MACT relied upon testimonies of PW3, R1W1 and PW1.

The Insurance policy in question is a ‘Comprehensive/Package Policy’ and not an ‘Act Only Policy’ and therefore, covered the injured claimant who was travelling as an occupant in the car. No evidence was filed by appellant/Insurance Company that respondent no.1/injured claimant was an employee of respondent no.3/owner. The testimony of Manager, Insurance Company (‘R3W2’), in this regard, could easily be ignored since no relationship of employer and employee has been established between respondent no.3/owner and respondent no.1/injured claimant.

Appellant/Insurance company failed to rebut the statement of PW3 and R1W1 and the theory that respondent no.1/injured claimant was driving the car was highly improbable, particularly, since there was a driver in the car.

The issues which have been raised by appellant/Insurance Company can primarily be categorized as: firstly, whether respondent no.1/injured claimant was travelling as a passenger in the backseat or driving the car; secondly, if he was travelling in the backseat as an occupant, will he be considered as a third party, and therefore, be covered under third-party liability; thirdly, if he was travelling as an occupant, but was a director of respondent no.3/Company who owned the car, then would he come within the ambit of being an employee, and therefore be excluded in the Comprehensive/Package Policy; fourthly, whether negligence at all can be established of the alleged driver of the vehicle, taking into account that the accident occurred due to the driver’s attempt to save a dog, which was crossing the road.

These issues can only be examined on the basis of evidence on record.

The claim petition filed before the MACT notes at serial no.11, that the injured claimant was sitting in the backseat of the offending vehicle and was travelling to his home in Chhattapur, Delhi from Dwarka, Delhi. It further notes that respondent no.2/driver-Sanjay Bhati was driving the said vehicle.

Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Rohtash Singh, P.S. Vasant Kunj (South) (‘PW1’), who was the Investigating Officer (IO) in the matter, stated that he had prepared the site plan and seized the offending vehicle. Driver of the offending vehicle was respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati and he had been arrested and released on bail. He denied the suggestion that respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati was not the driver of offending vehicle, or that he had falsely implicated the driver in order to help respondent no.1/injured claimant get compensation.

Roop Chand (‘PW2’) was a summoned witness from Medical Record Office, Max Health Centre, who testified as regards discharge summary of injured claimant, which had been exhibited as PW 2/2.

Vinay Tiwari (‘PW3’) was driver of the ambulance, who stated that he was coming back after dropping a patient at Vasant Kunj and when he reached Andheriya Mor, 2 to 3 persons standing nearby waved at him to stop the vehicle. He saw one Mercedes car standing there in an accidental condition and an injured person was lying unconscious at “rear seat of the car”. He stated that he took the injured person out and transferred him to the ambulance and got him admitted. Respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati also accompanied him to the hospital and stated that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. He further stated that he was driving the car and in order to save a dog, he swerved the car, which struck against a divider and respondent no.1/Satish Chandra sustained injuries.

DAR which had been filed also noted at serial no. 6 that the driver of offending vehicle was respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati and noted at serial no.10 that the victim was respondent no.1/Satish Chandra. Respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati (‘R1W1’) himself, in his evidence by way of affidavit, stated that he was driving the offending vehicle, though, with care and due caution and the accident occurred only because a dog came in front of the car and swerved the car into the divider in order to save the dog. There is nothing in the cross-examination to suggest otherwise or to suggest anything contrary to the above.

Appellant/Insurance Company relied upon the hospital discharge summary prepared by Max Healthcare [Ex. PW2/2 (Colly)], which recorded that it was evident that before the incident, injured claimant was driving the car that suddenly hit the roadside pole after which he became unconscious.

A perusal of the MLC dated 28^th May 2014, which noted the arrival of injured claimant at 17:15 hours, time of accident at 16:30 hours, notes the accompanying person as ‘Sanjay’, with the mobile number ‘9810004100’. It further notes that the patient was found in an unconscious state by a passing ambulance.

This corroborates with the testimony of PW3, driver of the ambulance, who had stated that he had stopped his ambulance when he saw one Mercedes car standing in an accidental condition and the injured claimant was lying unconscious in the rear seat of the car. He took the injured claimant in the ambulance and got him admitted in Max Hospital, Saket. Further, another person named ‘Sanjay Bhati’ had also accompanied him to the hospital, who stated that he was the driver. MLC in question, to which, counsel for respondent no.1/injured claimant has drawn attention to, would therefore corroborate that the patient was found unconscious by a passing ambulance and the person who had accompanied him was ‘Sanjay’ having the same address and phone number.

Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, submitted that Sanjay Bhati had disowned the mobile number provided in the MLC, as he stated that mobile number was ‘9910167383’ and he did not know as to whom, the mobile number ‘981000400’ belonged. Appellant/Insurance Company’s case, therefore, rests merely on the discrepancy of the phone number which cannot be determinative considering that it should be a recording error by the hospital staff. Rest of the details of Sanjay Bhati as recorded in the MLC, i.e. the injured claimant being brought in an ambulance, testimony of PW3, R1W1 are otherwise aligned.

Considering that this is being examined in the rubric of preponderance of probability, the Court has no reason to reject the injured claimant’s version that he was sitting in the rear seat of the car and respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati was driving the vehicle.

In light of the above testimonies on record and DAR, the plea of appellant/Insurance Company that since there were no eyewitnesses who saw him driving the vehicle, it cannot be presumed that respondent no.2/Sanjay Bhati was indeed driving a vehicle, is hereby rejected.

On the second issue of whether he would classify as a third party and would not be excluded on account of being director of the company, nature of the Insurance Policy will have to be considered.

A perusal of the Insurance Policy shows that Company is the insurer and covers third-party liability and paid driver (IMT 28), as also unnamed personal accident (‘PA’) cover for seven persons of Rs.1,50,000/- each. Appellant/Insurance Company has sought to assert that, since he was an employee of the Company, the insurance policy ought to have included an additional cover under IMT 29. The said clause is extracted as under:

(emphasis added)

MACT has covered this issue in paragraph 49 of impugned award. It had been contended by the claimant that he was merely an Independent Director and not a whole-time Director, nor was he drawing salary from the Company.

In the claim petition, it has been mentioned that he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.20,000/- from M/s. O.P. Gupta and Sons Private Ltd. MACT had noted that no evidence had been led by appellant/Insurance Company to the effect that the injured claimant was drawing salary from respondent no.3/Company or that he was engaged as a full-time Director of the Company. Injured claimant also showed Form 32, which showed the date of appointment as an additional director on 3^rd December 2009. Considering that there was no evidence by appellant/Insurance Company, in this regard, to show that he was an employee of the Company, MACT's view in rejecting the plea is therefore not amiss and the Court approves of the same.

Counsel for respondent no.1/injured claimant, further pointed out to the statement given by Surendra Singh Yadav, Manager (Administration) of the Company, who in a statement given on 28^th August 2014, stated that he was doing the work of assigning various company cars and that the offending vehicle was being driven by Sanjay Bhati and he was assigned to drive the School Chairman Satish Chandra from school to his residence at Chhattarpur.

Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the injured claimant was an employee of the company. Moreover, respondent no.1/injured claimant submitted that Rule 7 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 provides that there is a presumption about DAR, until the contrary is proved, since no witness was produced by appellant/Insurance Company to rebut the presumption.

Therefore, considering that respondent no.1/injured claimant was not an employee and was an occupant of the car, he would be covered by the Comprehensive/Package Policy. This aspect has now been settled by National Insurance Company v. Smt. Thungala Dhana Laxmi & Ors. 2026:INSC:793, where the Supreme Court held that the scope of Comprehensive/Package Insurance Policy covers liability, injury, death or damage to the property of occupants of the vehicles, including, those travelling in the rear seat of two wheelers and four wheelers. Relevant finding of the Court is extracted as under:

(emphasis added)

Reliance may also be placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan & Anr. (2013) 1 SCC 731, where distinction was made between a Comprehensive/Package Policy and an Act Only Policy. The claimant was the Managing Director of the Company and was travelling in the Company owned vehicle when it met with an accident. While, MACT granted compensation to injured by treating him as a third party and holding the Insurance Company liable, High Court treated owner of the vehicle to be liable and held that, since injured was only an occupant of the car, Insurance Company was liable to indemnify.

Reference was made to decision of this Court in Yashpal Luthra v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4291, which recorded evidence of the competent authority of Tariff Advisory Committee (‘TAC’) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (‘IRDA’) in the context of circular dated 16^th November 2009 issued to all Insurance Companies. The circular was issued with respect to liability of Insurance Companies of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under the “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. The circular stated that liability of an insurer with respect to an occupant travelling in a private car and as a pillion rider on a two-wheeler was covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. IRDA stated before the High Court that TAC had issued instructions to all Insurance Companies to cover the pillion rider of a two-wheeler under Comprehensive/Package Policy. It was also admitted that Comprehensive Policy is presently called Package Policy. Observations of this Court in Yashpal Luthra (supra) were extracted by the Supreme Court as under:

(emphasis added)

The Supreme Court in Balakrishnan (supra), concluded that there was no doubt that a ‘Comprehensive/Package Policy’ would cover the liability of insurer for payment of compensation for an occupant in a car. But an ‘Act Only Policy’ stands on a different footing, as it will not cover third-party risk of an occupant in a car. Therefore, decision of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remitted back to Tribunal to scrutinize the insurance policy from a proper perspective and for re-adjudication of the matter.

Accordingly, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of respondent no.1/injured claimant, that he was travelling as an occupant in the offending vehicle and would therefore, be entitled to compensation by appellant/Insurance Company.

Another issue was raised by Mr. Chhaya, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, as to whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.2/driver on account of the dog passing by in front of the car.

Respondent no.2/driver testified that a dog had suddenly come in the front of the car and, therefore, he swerved and dashed against the divider in an attempt to save the dog. Mr. Chhaya, therefore, pleaded that this would amount to a ‘sudden danger’ which when confronted with, the driver was left with no option but to take action to save them as any prudent person would act and therefore, the accident took place in the ‘agony of the moment’ and not due to negligence of the driver.

‘Agony of the Moment’ or ‘sudden danger’ are phrases which have been used by Courts across the world to broadly describe situations a driver may suddenly be faced with, triggering a dilemma and thus, forced to take avoidance measures, which may lead to an accident.

Certain decisions have been rendered by the Supreme Court and other High Courts, that are being referred to which have dealt with the issue of similar situations involving the driver being put in a dilemma, due to the ‘agony of the moment.’

While the decisions noted above deal with situations arising from a sudden danger caused due to the act of defendant driving a vehicle, and therefore the element of contributory negligence has been considered by the Courts. However, these decisions do not deal with situations where the sudden danger is caused by a completely unconnected factor i.e. a natural cause or an animal. Reliance may be placed upon the following decisions that deal with such situations.

Analysing these decisions and the views taken by the Courts, the picture which emerges is quite clear. The issue of contributory negligence if pleaded against the plaintiff, in a situation of sudden danger caused due to the act of defendant, may not succeed. Firstly, there is a duty of care on the defendant to have taken reasonable care to not trigger a perilous situation and; secondly, the prudent conduct of the plaintiff being unable to avoid such a perilous situation and an attempt to mitigate the situation.

The other set of situations arise where there is no defendant, in that, the accident has been caused due to a stray animal, an intervening natural cause, which triggers a perilous situation. In such cases, the Courts have taken a view that it is for the drivers to expect such situations to happen and therefore, to exercise reasonable care in order to ensure that they do not cause any injury or harm to a bystander or to the occupants of the car.

The case at hand relates to the second situation, where it has been pleaded that a dog had crossed the road and in trying to avoid the dog the driver dashed against the divider ultimately resulting in the death of the occupant in the rear seat. The ‘agony of the moment’ or the ‘sudden danger’ is present in both situations, however, in the former set it is caused by a human agency, whereas, in the latter set it is caused by a stray animal or a natural cause.

It would not be inapposite to observe that traffic on the roads in India can be particularly unpredictable. Road users have a propensity not to follow road discipline or to adhere strictly to traffic regulations. This naturally triggers myriad unpredictable situations, which road users in India are often faced with. To avoid mishaps, this naturally requires faster reflexes, consistent alertness and presence of mind. The country is beset with a huge number of motor accidents occurring due to various causes, be it careless pedestrians, stray animals, aggressive drivers, overspeeding, drunken driving, lane indiscipline, etc.

The range of issues which trigger accidents has recently been documented through statistical data by the Minister of Road Transport and Highways in response to the Unstarred Question no. 1939, answered on 30^th July 2026, which provided details of road accidents, fatalities and injuries reported in the last 5 years, with the data for 2026 available upto 27^th July 2026. The response also provided category-wise details of accidents resulting out of over-speeding, drunk driving, distracted driving, along with other causes. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:

Road users in India have a propensity to take sudden unpredictable deviations while travelling on the road, triggering alarming situations which a road user may be faced with.

For example, while crossing a semi-urban or a rural road, driver of any vehicle ought to be alert to the possibility of stray animals crossing the road. The same unfortunately would be the case in crowded, congested urban areas as well.

At all times, a driver on the road has to be alert with complete visual focus, the road space in front of him and traffic at the rear. Aside from this, the driver has to be in complete control of the vehicle which, due to its mass and velocity has a high momentum and, therefore, needs to be effectively controlled through steering and braking systems. A quick response time may be required in certain situations and one cannot simply absolve drivers on the roads from that duty of care.

The view which has been taken and the various decisions cited above also echo the same sentiment. In Harmesh Kumar (supra) the Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that a driver cannot resort to saying that an animal was negligent for its illogical act and the driver must factor their own driving skills. The Court had opined that drivers cannot evade liability by taking such an excuse and therefore, have a duty to anticipate possible hazards and exercise control and vigilance.

The concept has been pithily put by the Supreme Court in Laxman Iyer (supra) where, it was noted that, “the idea of negligence and duty are strictly correlative. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind, or objectively careless conduct.”

One cannot simply exonerate the driver from such liability, since it would otherwise open a Pandora’s box of excuses being made for negligent conduct. A driver's conduct could be negligent on various fronts, such as, driving at a speed where they could not control the vehicle, or not paying enough attention to the road, or not having visual focus to be able to anticipate the danger much earlier. All these factors could contribute to lack of reasonable care.

Mr. Chhaya, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, has relied upon the decisions in Syed Akbar (supra) and Manjusha (supra) in his support, however, the same shall not be applicable to the present case. The Supreme Court in Syed Akbar (supra) dealt with a Criminal Appeal preferred by a bus driver who had swerved the bus to the right side in order to save a child who had been crossing the road, therefore, the finding on negligence in a criminal case cannot be equated with principle of preponderance of probabilities that is followed in MACT proceedings. Manjusha (supra) on the other hand, was an appeal by claimants travelling in a car where the accident occurred due to a mechanical intervention i.e. a tyre burst. Compensation had been granted due to the nature of the insurance policy being a ‘Comprehensive/Package Policy’, therefore, the same can be distinguished on facts.

Therefore, in this view, the Court is not inclined to accept the appellant/Insurance Company’s plea on the driver not being negligent, due to the ‘agony of the moment’.

Mr. Chhaya, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, challenged the quantum of compensation on essentially three grounds, which are noted as under:

As regards the first contention for payment of attendant charges, the Court has perused through the testimony of Ms. Divya Jyoti Dungdung (‘PW6’), who was the injured claimant’s nursing attendant and was charging Rs. 42,000/- per month. In support of her testimony, she has provided the original payment receipts, which has been exhibited as Ex. PW 6/5 (Colly). The said receipts have been perused by the Court, along with the statement of Dr. Akhilesh Singh, MD, Physician, M/s Super Speciality Hospital (‘PW9’).

PW9 stated that, from the date of accident till the date when he last visited the injured claimant on 16^th December 2015, he was in coma/unconscious state. He further stated that the patient cannot be left alone without an attendant and had advised the family of injured claimant to arrange for a qualified medical/nursing attendant for 24 hours. Even if the injured claimant regains consciousness in the future, he will not be able to perform his day-to-day activities and will remain bed ridden.

Accordingly, considering the nature of his injuries, the Court is not inclined to displace the finding of MACT as regards the compensation awarded for attendant charges, as also the compensation awarded for future medical expenses.

As regards the second contention, injured claimant had subsequently passed away on 22^nd August 2020, as noted in the death certificate annexed to the appeal. Therefore, appellant/Insurance Company’s submission in this regard shall also not be sustainable, since the period for refund of the amount towards medical expenses was for 6 months w.e.f. from 1^st March 2016.

As regards the third contention, the Court is inclined to consider the detailed testimony of the wife of injured claimant (PW8) who has tendered the receipts of medical expenses incurred for treatment. Ex. PW 8/3 is a list of dates and fees charged by Dr. Akhilesh Singh. Ex. PW8/4 is the payment receipt issued by Ms. Dolma Tsering for November 2014 and January 2015 to May 2015. Ex. PW 8/5 is the original receipt issued by Sh. Tsering Dawa for October 2014, December 2014, February 2015 to October 2015. Ex. PW 8/6 is the receipt issued by Sh. Rakesh R for October 2014 to December 2014. Ex. PW 8/7 is the payment receipt of Rs. 37,200/- issued by Dr. Akram Khan. Ex. PW8/8 is the payment receipt of Rs.32,500/- issued by Dr. Manish Gupta. Original medical bills of Rs.15,70,405.44/- and Rs.1,57,405/- have also been exhibited as Ex. PW 8/9 and Ex. PW 8/10. Further bills of Rs.1,88,200/- issued by Dr. Akram Khan, have been exhibited as Ex. PW8/11.

The contention raised by Mr. Chhaya, that the testimony given by the wife of injured claimant in terms of affidavit pursuant to order dated 25^th August 2017, may not sustain, considering that a breakup of the payments made through cash and cheque mode, along with amount received in insurance and paid through credit card has been provided. Considering that the accident occurred on 28^th May 2014 and the injured claimant was in coma till the date of his death on 22^nd August 2020, MACT has correctly awarded the amount towards medical expenses.

Therefore, in view of the above, the appeal of Insurance Company lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

By order dated 6^th September 2016, the Court had directed the Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the compensation along with up-to-date interest before the Registrar General and the said amount was kept in FDRs to be released to the injured claimant through his wife.

Considering that the appeal of Insurance Company has been dismissed, the balance 50% amount, along with accrued interest, shall be deposited before the Registrar General and shall be released as lumpsum, considering that the injured claimant has since passed away.

Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the Insurance Company, only if the order of deposit has been complied with.

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.