$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 175/2015 & CM APPL. 3065/2015 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Mr. P.

Srinivasan, Advocates.

versus MEEAN KATIYAR & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. for R-1 to 4 Mr. Siddharth Mittal, Mr. Abhijeet V., Mr. Sumit K. Sharma, Advs. for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 28.01.2026

1. Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate addressed some opening arguments on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company. His arguments are essentially restricted to mis-apportionment of contributory negligence as, 80% on driver of the offending vehicle, which was a tractor-cum-trolley and 20% on the deceased who was driving his car behind the tractor-cum-trolley.

2. This has been resisted by counsel for claimants on the basis that cross- examination of eye-witness, PW-2, does not entail any such confrontation by the appellant/Insurance Company relating to contributory negligence.

3. Since no evidence has been brought forward by the Insurance Company, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘Tribunal’] concluded that 80% of contributory negligence would be placed on driver of offending vehicle and 20% on