$~59 & 60 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 90/2026 NARESH CHAND & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Ms.

Tanisha Gopal, Advs.

versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD &

ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shruti Jain, Adv.

(60)

+ MAC.APP. 91/2026 NARESH CHAND & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Ms.

Tanisha Gopal, Advs.

versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shruti Jain, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 CM APPL. 6172/2026 & CM APPL. 6173/2026 (condonation of delay in filing and re-filing) in MAC.APP. 90/2026 and CM APPL. 6221/2026 & CM APPL. 6222/2026 (condonation of delay in filing and re-filing) in MAC.APP. 91/2026

1. These applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 117 days in filing and 15 days in refiling the MAC.APP. 90/2026 and 117 days in filing and 22 days in refiling the MAC.APP. 91/2026 respectively.

2. On account of appellant being 66 years old and suffering from paralysis which restricts mobility, speech, and day-to-day functioning, which persisted since January 2024, , the delay stands condoned.

3. Applications stand disposed of.

MAC.APP. 90/2026 & MAC.APP. 91/2026

1. These appeals have been filed assailing impugned awards dated 31^st May 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’) in MACT No.184/2017 and MACT No.185/2017 Award was passed in favour of the claimants for a sum of Rs.26,60,928/-

with interest @ 8% per annum in MACT No.184/2017

2. The accident occurred on 10^th December 2016 at about 03:00 P.M., when the deceased [Sh. Dariyav Singh] was riding pillion along with his companion [Sh. Pushpendra], who was driving the motorcycle.

3. The accident occurred due to a collision with a truck bearing registration no. UP-13T-0996, which was coming from the wrong side. As part of the the initial information given by an alleged eye-witness, namely Sh. Jai Singh, [who was never examined], the driver of the offending vehicle was identified as one Sh. Rajeev, whose details were furnished to the police, leading to the registration of FIR and, consequently, the filing of the charge-sheet.

4. Subsequently, however, the Insurance Company filed its written statement, wherein it stated that the driver was, in fact, Sh. Dharamvir Singh, who held a valid driving licence. On the basis of this, claimants filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking deletion of Sh. Rajeev from the array of parties and impleadment of Sh. Dharamvir Singh as the driver of the offending vehicle.

5. However, MACT, on the basis of police report and charge-sheet, came to the conclusion that it was Sh. Rajeev, who was driving the offending vehicle, and he was impleaded again as respondent no.5 in the claim petition by order dated 10^th January 2024.

6. Sh. Rajeev filed his statement stating that he was a helper of the offending vehicle and Sh. Dharamvir Singh was the driver of offending vehicle.

7. Sh. Dharamvir Singh, as R1W1, also led his evidence admitting that he was driving the vehicle by placing his driver license as Exhibit R1W1/1 8. Evidence of Sh. Pushpendra [PW-2] has also been adverted to by counsel for appellant, which was recorded in two parts. In 2018, he did not identify any person in particular; however, in 2024, he suggested during his cross-examination that Sh. Rajeev was the driver of offending vehicle not Sh. Dharamvir Singh.

9. Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, counsel for owner of offending vehicle, states that the the MACT has granted recovery rights against them in both the cases, one relating to injury and another relating to death, on the basis that driver of the vehicle was Sh. Rajeev, who did not hold a valid driving licence.

10. In these circumstances, issue Notice to respondent no.1.

11. Notice is accepted by Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.1/Insurance Company.

12. Reply be filed within a period of three we