$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 17^th March 2026 + MAC.APP. 793/2018 & CM APPL. 35938/2018 NATIONAL INSURNACE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Zorawar Singh, Mr. Jayant Rastogi, Advocates.

versus LAXMI BISHT & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the Award dated 9^th July 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [‘MACT’] in MACP No.1157/2016, whereby compensation of Rs.48,96,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was granted.

2. On 9^th June 2013, Balwant Singh Bisht (deceased) was riding his motorcycle from Dilshad Garden towards Ghaziabad when a bus bearing number UP-15AT-4990 [‘offending vehicle’] struck his motorcycle, causing fatal injuries which resulted in his demise. A criminal case being FIR No.744/2013 under Section 279/338/304A/427 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, was registered against the driver [respondent no.3 herein] of the offending vehicle and a chargesheet was filed against him. The offending vehicle was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company. Balwant Singh Bisht (deceased) was aged about 26 years and was a bachelor at the time of the accident. He was working as a ‘Lecturer’ with Lovely Professional University and was drawing a salary of Rs.30,435/- per month.

Analysis

3. Mr. Jayant Rastogi, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, assails the award on two main grounds: firstly, that there was no concrete proof of the accident having occurred and it was the duty of the claimants [respondent no.1 & 2 herein] to prove negligence of driver/respondent no.3 of the offending vehicle. He places his reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. 2007 (5) SCC 428. 4. As per as counsel for appellant, the MACT has solely relied upon the testimony of the Investigating Officer (‘I.O.’) S.I Vimal Kumar [PW-3]. In the cross-examination, he stated that he could not say whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver. Further, there was no eyewitness to the accident.

5. Counsel for respondent/claimants countered this by stating that the MACT was not bound by strict rules of evidence and that the proceedings before the MACT are in the nature of an inquiry based on a finding of negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

6. The Court has perused the documents on record, in particular, the testimony of PW-3. He categorically states that, “during investigation, he had found that an accident had taken place in which motorcyclist was hit from behind by the bus. The offending vehicle was found on the spot and its driver had already fled leaving the bus unattended”. He further stated that the “motorcycle was found under the front wheel of the bus and the driver was arrested later on, who was subsequently charge sheeted”. He had filed a copy of the chargesheet as Exhibit PW3/2 and prepared the site plan, which was exhibited as Exhibit PW3/3. He stated that the motorcyclist was on his correct left-hand side and that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus in question.

7. In cross examination, PW-3 stated he “could not remember who had given the information about the accident and that no witness was available”. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the driver. The portion of the cross examination on which the counsel for appellant relies is merely a denial of the suggestion whether the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus or the driver of the motorcycle. The MACT, in its Award, assessed this as part of Issue No.1 [“Whether Balwant Singh Bisht suffered fatal injuries in the accident occurred on 09/06/2013 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. UP- 15-AT-4990 (Tata Bus) being