* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 30^th January 2026 Pronounced on : 10^th March 2026 Uploaded on : 10^th March 2026 + MAC.APP. 822/2025 & CM APPL. 81939/2025 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Hari Prakash Sharma and Mr.

Vibhash Jha, Advs.

versus LAKSHMI KUMARI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed assailing impugning award dated 28^th October 2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’] North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in MAC Petition No. 523/2023 whereby the MACT awarded Rs. 35,11,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

The Accident

2. On 9^th June 2023, Vatan Kumar (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) along with his father was travelling to Dabua Mandi, Faridabad from Azadpur Mandi, Delhi for unloading vegetables on his vehicle i.e., TATA Ace bearing no. DL1L-AH-7470. At about 4:30 am, when they reached near Ajronda Pull, Khatushyam Temple, truck bearing registration no. HR55X-2035 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’) was lying parked in the middle of road on the wrong side without any indication, resulting in a collision of deceased’s vehicle into the offending vehicle. As a result of this incident, deceased sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to the same. FIR No.

443/2023 was registered at Police Station, Sector 8, Faridabad.

Impugned Award

3. Claim petition was filed by surviving legal heirs of deceased including, his wife/Lakshmi Kumari, one year old son/Sibosh Kumar, and parents/Rani Devi and Shyamanand Mukhiya (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) Written statements were filed by respondent no.2/driver and respondent no.3/owner of the offending vehicle, as also by appellant/Issuance Company. 4. During the course of proceedings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1) Whether deceased Vatan Kumar has died in road side accident occurred on 09.06.2023 at about 4.30 AM, near Ajronda Pull, Khatu Shyam Temple, within the jurisdiction of PS. Sector — 8, District Faridabad, due to rashness and negligence on the part of Sh. Manoj Kumar Ray/R1 who was driving vehicle bearing registration no. HR55-X-2035, owned by Sh. Anil Langan and insured with United India Insurance Company Limited/R3?0PP.

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation if so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?

OPP.”

5. While determining issue no.1, MACT concluded that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondent no.2/driver of offending vehicle and relied upon testimony of PW-1, father of deceased who stated that he alongwith his son went to Dabua Mandi, Faridabad for unloading vegetables and was told to wait, while his son proceeded towards Sector-16 Mandi. During his cross examination he stated that after about 10-15 minutes he took an auto for Delhi and upon reaching the spot of accident, he saw a group of people gathered there. It was admitted by him that he had not seen the accident.

6. Reliance was placed on criminal case record Ex. PW-1/9 (colly) which included, FIR No. 443/2023 and charge-sheet which had been filed establishing that the accident had occurred due to negligence on part of respondent no.2/driver of offending vehicle.

7. MACT relied upon decisions of Supreme Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457; Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, (1996) 5 SCC 21 and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646, to highlight that the purpose of granting compensation is to ameliorate the sufferings of victims of motor vehicle accidents and technicalities should not be a ground to dismiss claim petitions and defeat the rights of claimants.

8. Further reliance was placed on Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 186, a case where no eyewitness was examined by the claimants, the Apex Court held that criminal case record, including, charge- sheet will be enough to establish that the accident was caused by offending v