$~15 & 16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 395/2019, CM APPL. 13319/2019, CM APPL.

13320/2019 & CM APPL. 13321/2019 TEK SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Moksh Arora, Advocate.

versus NAVRATAN & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Seema Gulati, Advocate for R-3.

+ MAC.APP. 407/2019, CM APPL. 13931/2019, CM APPL.

13932/2019 & CM APPL. 13933/2019.

TEK SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Moksh Arora, Advocate.

versus SANDEEP & ORS ( NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD)

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Seema Gulati, Advocate for R-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026

1. Counsel for appellant, Mr. Moksh Aroa, states that the licences which was presented by driver named Tejpal [respondent no.2 herein] before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal [‘MACT’], upon verification, turned out to be non-existent.

2. Yet another licence was subsequently produced by the driver (“2^nd Licence”), which could not be verified during the proceedings before the MACT.

3. Accordingly, the MACT, in its award at paragraph 74, stated that the burden was upon the driver to prove the driving license by leading evidence from the Transport Authority, and that such burden was not discharged.

4. Co