%

23.01.2024

1.

This hearing is being conducted through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 4100/2024 (Ex.)

2.

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3.

The application shall stand disposed of.

CM APPL. 4101/2024 (Delay of 04 days in filing the present

appeal)

4.

This application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner

seeking condonation of delay of 04 days in filing the present appeal.

5.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 04 days in

filing the present appeal is condoned.

6.

The application stands disposed of.

MAC.APP. 55/2024

7.

None appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 despite

advance notice.

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 25/01/2024 at 01:57:54

8.

Advance

notice

has

been

served

upon

respondent

No.3/Insurance Company who is being represented through learned

proxy counsel for the main counsel, Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate.

9.

The appellants/claimants are challenging the impugned

judgment-cum-award dated 19.09.2023 passed by the learned

Presiding Officer, MACT, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby

the claim petition instituted at the behest of the appellants seeking

compensation for the death of their mother-Smt. Maha Devi involving

offending vehicle i.e., bus bearing No. UP-17T-5919, has been

dismissed.

10.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

learned MACT was not impressed by the testimony of PW-1, Tulsi

Prasad, who was an alleged eye-witness to the motor accident. The

deceased was a pedestrian who was apparently hit by the offending

vehicle driven by respondent No.1 and it was pointed out that he was

apprehended at the spot of the incident. It is also pointed out that an

FIR was lodged and a chargesheet has already been filed against

respondent No.1.

11.

On a careful reading of the impugned judgment-cum-award,

this Court finds that the learned MACT has taken a hyper technical

view of the matter and has failed to appreciate the real controversy in

light of the well ordained law propounded by the Apex Court in the

case Anita Sharma v. NIAC 2021 (1) SCC 171, as well as National

Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, MAC 561 of 2018

besides other such judgments.

12.

Briefly put, it is well established in compensatory jurisprudence

that there are certain situations wherein the claimants may face

difficulty in proving the manner in which the accident occurred, and in

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 25/01/2024 at 01:57:54

such appropriate cases, the Tribunal can invoke the principle of res

ipsa loquitor, so as to shift the onus of proof upon the defendant i.e.

driver of the offending vehicle.

13.

In any case, even if the issue of rash and negligent driving was

not proved, it was still open to the court to decide the quantum of

compensation in terms of Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

14.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is

allowed. The impugned judgment-cum-award dated 19.09.2023 is

hereby set aside with the direction to the learned Presiding Officer,

MACT, to re-examine the entire gamut of the case and subsequent to

rendering a fresh hearing to the parties, decide the matter afresh as per

law. Nothing stated in this order shall tantamount to an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case.

15.

Copy of this order be sent to the learned Presiding Officer,

MACT, for information and necessary compliance.

16.

The claimants shall appear before the learned Presiding Officer,

MACT on 01.03.2024.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

JANUARY 23, 2024

sp

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 D