$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 88/2026, CM APPL. 6134/2026 HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advs.

versus MOHD. MUSATAK & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 CM APPL. 6135/2026 (Exemption

1. Exemtions is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 6136/2026 & CM APPL. 6137/2026 (condonation of delay in filing and re-filing)

1. These applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1 day in filing and 6 days in re-filing the present appeal.

2. In light of what has been stated in the applications, the delay is condoned.

3. Applications stand disposed of.

MAC.APP. 88/2026

1. This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned award dated 9^th October 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT No.223/2022. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24,97,681/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Ms. Suman Bagga, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, assails the award on two grounds;

i) First, is that the insurance policy presented by the owner of the offending vehicle was a fake insurance policy. It was issued for a two- wheeler, whereas the offending vehicle was a three-wheeler/ three seater autorickshaws (‘TSR’).

Though the registration no. ‘DL-1RZ-6601’, which was the registration number of the TSR, was accurately entered into the insurance policy by the agent, there was some mistake apparently relating to the description of the vehicle.

The MACT, therefore, held that it was the obligation of the Insurance Company to verify the details within a reasonable time so that any discrepancy should have been informed to the agent and the owner of vehicle immediately, and cancellation ought to have taken place.

Tribunal has held that the Inurance Company accepted the premium, and ignored the verification process, and took steps only when Detailed Accident Reprt (DAR) was filed.

In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has correctly held that if the agent supplied the incorrect information to propose a cheaper insurance premium, the innocent customer cannot be faulted, and it is for the Insurance Company to verify the details.

Ms. Suman Bagga, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, states that that there is no process to verify the details once the details have been furnished on the portal.

In the opinion of this Court, this cannot exonerate the appellant/Insurance Company from liability, having accepted the premium from the insured, who was under the bona fide belief that they had a valid insurance policy. A police complaint was also made much later, after the DAR was filed.

ii) Second issue pressed by counsel for appellant relates to the determination of functional disability at 60% of the injured, who was running a tea stall at Old Delhi Railway Station. Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company states that 60% permanent disability pertained only the left limb, and the Tribunal was amiss in assessing functional disability at 60% of the whole body, particularly when the injured did not have an occupation requiring consistent mobility.

3. On the above said limited second point, issue Notice to respondent no.1, to be served through counsel for claimant, on steps being taken by the appellant through all permissible modes, including e-mail, etc.

4. Returnable on 14^th May 2026.

5. In the meantime, appellant/Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest before the Tribunal, which shall be kept in an interest bearing fixed deposit and initial award amount of Rs.4,84,451/-, as directed by the MACT, shall be released to the claimant.

Apart from this, the claimant shall also be entitled to release of 75% of Rs.28,00,000/-, which has been placed in a fixed deposit, in terms of the directions of the Tribunal.

6. Trial Court Record (TCR) be also requisitioned and placed on record.