Delhi High Court – Orders
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Brhamkaur & Ors on 9 March, 2026
$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 161/2026, CM APPL. 14153/2026 CM APPL.
14154/2026 & CM APPL. 14155/2026.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate with
Mr. Sahil Paul, Advocates.
versus
BRHAMKAUR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 09.03.2026
1. This appeal has been filed challenging the impugned award
dated 3rd December 2025 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Rohini Courts [‘MACT’], in MAC Petition No. 84/2021,
whereby an award was passed in favour of claimant for a sum of Rs.
62,21,000/- along with 7.5% interest per annum.
2. Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company challenges the award
on the basis that the claimants could not prove negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle, and the MACT erred in accepting the record
of the criminal proceedings for the purpose of determining Issue No. 1.
For ease of reference, said Issue is extracted as under:
“Whether deceased Tejvir Singh has died in road side
accident occurred on 16.11.2020 at 9:00 PM at Eastern
Peripheral Expressway, Rataul Bypasss, Khekda, District
Baghpat UP, within the jurisdiction of PS. Khekda,This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 20:46:57
District Baghpat, UP, due to rashness and negligence on
the part of Sh. Narender Pal Singh/R2 who was driving
vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01-BR-4171, owned
by Sh. Nabab Singh/R1 and insured with New India
Assurance Co. Ltd/R37? OPP”
3. The accident occurred on 16th November 2020 at about 9:00
p.m., when deceased Tejvir Singh was standing near his car on the
Eastern Peripheral Expressway, District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh, since
there was a mechanical fault in his car. His parking lights were
apparently on; however, despite that, a Mahindra XUV vehicle bearing
No. AS01-BR-4171 [‘offending vehicle’], allegedly driven in a rash
and negligent manner, hit the vehicle of the deceased. Tejvir Singh,
sustained fatal injuries and died. FIR No. 446 /2020 under Sections
279/304A/427 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [IPC] was registered at
Police Station Khekra.
4. Appellant/Insurance Company took the defence before the
MACT that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated, and that
negligence had not been proven. In examining this, the MACT in the
impugned award notes the testimony of PW-1, Shri Ishwar Singh,
father of the deceased, who proved various documents related to the
proceedings before the Criminal Court, as well as the identification
documents, driving license and salary documents.
5. Counsel for appellant stated clearly in his cross-examination
that he was not an eyewitness, but denied the suggestion that the
offending vehicle, was falsely implicated only to grab compensation.
6. The MACT in paragraph 12 of the impugned award, stated that
nevertheless there was ample material brought on record during
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 20:46:57
inquiry which was sufficient to establish that the accident occurred
because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Notably, the MACT records that two General Diary entries were
registered at Police Station Khekra.
7. First was GD No. 002, recorded on 17th November 2020 at
about 12:59 a.m, on the statement of Vikas, brother of the deceased,
regarding the accident in question having been caused by an unknown
vehicle.
8. Second was GD No. 003, recorded at Police Station Khekra, on
17th November 2020 at about 1:11 a.m., on the statement of Nabab
Singh, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, stating that his
vehicle had hit the divider to save another vehicle.
9. The MACT, on assessing these two General Diary entries, notes
that:
“A bare perusal of both the aforesaid GDs show that
the same were recorded within a short span of 12 minutes
and were about the accident which had occurred at the
same place on the same date”
10. The recording of GD No. 003, as noted by the MACT, would
bear out that the vehicle was being driven by its driver at a high speed,
in a negligent manner, because of which he could not avoid a collision.
FIR was subsequently registered and a chargesheet was also filed.
11. It is also important to note is that the appellant/Insurance
Company did not take steps to produce the driver or owner of the
offending vehicle, as a witness, to dilute or controvert the assertion of
the claimant in this regard.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 20:46:57
12. The MACT also placed reliance on the post-mortem report,
which showed that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock, and
the injuries noted in the column relating to external injuries were
consistent with injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
13. Counsel for appellant relies on the decision in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428. However,
the said decision would not come to the aid of the appellant, since the
assessment by the MACT has been made based on preponderance of
probabilities.
14. Considering that the deceased was on his own, and there was no
eyewitness at the time of the fatal accident, the relevant record had to
be examined by the MACT in this regard. The MACT, in the opinion
of this Court, has correctly undertaken such an assessment, and there is
nothing else on record which would sustain the plea of the appellant.
Not only was a chargesheet filed, but also there was no evidence to the
contrary placed by the Insurance company. Also, there was no reason
for the owner of the offending vehicle to register a GD on the same
day at a proximate time stating that his vehicle hit a divider. The test
of preponderance of probabilities was fully satisfied in these facts and
circumstances.
15. For ease of reference, observations made by the MACT is
extracted as under:
“16. Further, it is well settled legal position as laid
down by Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by various
High Courts in plethora of judgments delivered from
time to time that in claim petitions preferred U/s
160/144 M.V Act, the claimants have to prove on the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 20:46:57
basis of preponderance of probabilities that accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving of
alleged offending vehicles by its drivers. Same is the
essence of legal position discussed by Hon’ble Apex
Court in celebrated case of Meena Variyal mentioned
supra. At the same time, it is no more res-integra that
claim petition filed under relevant provisions of M.V
Act, is the outcome of social welfare legislation and the
proceedings are summary in nature and do not require
strict compliance of rules of evidence and pleadings. It
needs no emphasis that in case replies filed by
respondents, are evasive then it is deemed that they
have admitted the averments made by the claimants.
The purpose of granting compensation is to ameliorate
the sufferings of the victims of Motor Vehicle Accidents
and the niceties, hyper technicalities, procedural
wrangles and tangles and mystic maybes have no role
to play and same should not be any ground to dismiss
the claim petitions and to defeat the rights of the
claimants. While saying so, I am fortified by the
decisions rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases
titled as “N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd Vs. M. Karumai
Ammal“, 1980 ACJ 435 (SC); “Sohan Lal Passi Vs.
P. Sesh Reddy“, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC) and “Dulcina
Fernandes Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz“, 2013 ACJ
2712 (SC). It is also relevant to mention here that
while deciding claim petition under M.V Act, it is the
duty of Claims Tribunal to follow the principles of
justice, equity and good conscience and to adopt more
realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach.
17. The aforesaid issue recently came up for
discussion before Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
“Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance
Company Limited & Ors.”, Civil Appeal No. 11042 of
2018, decided on 16.11.18. After referring to the
previous judicial precedents on the point in issue and
the fact that M.V. Act is a social welfare legislation,
Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 29 of its judgment as
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 20:46:57
under:-
“xxxxx
29. In our view, what more documents could
be filed then the documents filed by the appellants
to prove the factum of the accident and the
persons involved therein.
xxxxx”
18. In the above cited decision, the facts were almost
similar and the claimants had not examined any
eyewitness. Hon’ble Apex Court held that in view of
filing of criminal case record including charge-sheet
showing that driver of alleged offending vehicle had
been charge-sheeted for causing the accident due to
rash and negligent driving of said vehicle and the
driver himself did not enter into witness box, claimants
were able to prove the issue of accident being caused
due to rash and negligent driving of said vehicle by
said driver on the basis of pre-ponderance of the
probabilities.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the
evidence which has come on record, it is held that the
petitioners have been able to prove on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities that deceased Tejvir
Singh had sustained fatal injuries in the road accident
which took place on 16.11.2020 at about 9:00 PM at
Eastern Peripheral Expressway, Rataul Bypasss,
Khekda, District Baghpat, UP, due to rash and
negligent driving on the part of respondent no. 2/driver
of the offending vehicle. Thus, this issue is decided in
favour of petitioners and against the respondents.”
16. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
17. Pending applications are rendered infructuous.
18. The demand draft of Rs.25,000/- towards the statutory deposit
has been placed on record, though the draft has not been deposited, as
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 20:46:57
stated by Mr. Salil Paul, Counsel for the appellant.
19. Accordingly, the same may not be deposited, considering that
the appeal is now dismissed.
20. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
MARCH 9, 2026/RK/tk
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 20:46:57