$~38

* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

+ MAC.APP. 18/2026 CM APPL. 1601-1605/2026

SATPAL & ANR. .....Appellants

Through: Mr. Adesh Kumar, Mr. Kittu Bajaj,

Advocate.

versus

JAGJEET SINGH & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ajay Satija, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 12.01.2026

CM APPL 1602/2026, CM APPL 1603/2026 and CM APPL 1604/2026

(Exemptions)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Accordingly, applications are disposed of.

MAC.APP. 18/2026 and CM APPL 1605/2026 (condonation of delay

1. This appeal has been filed assailing order and judgment dated 8^th May 2025, passed by the MACT in DAR no. 809 / 2017 titled as “Jagjeet Singh

& Anr. vs Chandan &Anr”.

2. The incident in question relates to a fatal accident which occurred on 12^th March 2016 at about 9 p.m. near landing point, Mahipalpur, New Delhi in which Sh. Manpreet Singh sustained fatal injuries while riding his scooter. 3. It is alleged by counsel for appellants (appellate no.1 being the owner and appellate no. 2 being the driver) that, appellant no.2 was present on the left side of the road in a punctured Champion three-wheeler and he called the police and ambulance to assist the injured victim. DD no. 41A was

recorded at PS Vasant Kunj (North).

4. The deceased was admitted at Indian Spinal Injury Centre and subsequently, FIR no. 173/ 2016 under Sections 279/337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was recorded as a hit and run case.

5. The victim passed away on 14^th April 2016 and was unconscious throughout therefore, no statement could be taken. It was stated that there was no eyewitness available at the spot or at the hospital and the investigation culminated in an untraced Report dated 7^th July 2016, duly approved by the SHO and the ACP.

6. Many months after the accident, information was given by father of the deceased that he had got some information through one Ajeet Singh, who had apparently witnessed the accident and stated that the Champion vehicle was involved in the said accident but driver ran away because the accident happened.

7. A subsequent chargesheet dated 19^th August 2017, which allegedly was never approved by the SHO nor forwarded to the ACP, and materially differed from the final charge sheet dated 20^th January 2018 signed by the IO, SHO and ACP was placed before the MACT.

8. The MACT relied upon the draft charge sheet and concluded that the condition of the scooter and the site plan would show that there would have been an accident with the Champion vehicle.

9. It also transpired that the insurance policy produced during the investigation by appellant was fake and FIR 68 /2019 at PS Gazipur was registered against the agent who has issued the fake insurance to appellate no.1 as well as other local persons in the locality. The agent was arrested and charge sheeted.

10. Counsel for appellant states that the impugned award is untenable considering that there were no eyewitnesses, the original final report was an untraced Report and the evidence of Ajeet Singh was introduced later by father of the deceased. Neither the FIR nor the chargesheet nor the DAR state the side on which the alleged offending vehicle was parked and the inference was drawn basis the position of the scooter at the site plan and condition of the scooter.

11. Compensation of about Rs. 65 lakhs has been awarded by the MACT in favour of the claimants and against the appellants.

12. Issue Notice.

13. Mr. Ajay Satija, counsel for respondents accepts notice.

14. Counsel for appellant states that they are not in a position to deposit any money since the owner of the alleged offending vehicle is a TSR owner. Counsel for appellant shall file either his tax returns and his statement on affidavit of his income and expenses within the next two weeks, with copy to counsel for respondents.

15. List on 13^th February 2026.

CM APPL 1601/20206 (Stay

1. This application has been filed seeking stay of operation of the impugned order.

2. On the fact and circumstances as stated above, till the next date of