$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 25^th March 2026 + MAC.APP. 1097/2018, CM APPL. 51336/2018, CM APPL.

51268/2022, CM APPL. 9343/2026 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate.

versus SNEHA LATA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S. Waseem A Qadri, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Diwas Kumar and Mr.

Umashankar Shanna, Advs. for R-2 to 4.

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 21^st August 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘MACT’] in Claim Petition No.729/2011, whereby a compensation of Rs.64,51,000/- with interest @

9% per annum was awarded.

2. The accident occurred on 4^th May 2007 at about 2:30 p.m. near Police Station Ghabhan, Aligarh, when the deceased, travelling from Aligarh to Delhi in Maruti Wagon R collided with a Uttar Pradesh Roadways bus driven by respondent no.6 and operated by respondent no.5 [Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ('UPSRTC’)] and insured by appellant/Insurance Company. It was a head-on collision which occurred in the middle of the road where there was no divider.

3. As regards the first issue, MACT concluded that the bus driver was negligent in driving on the right side of the carriageway, while, being a heavy vehicle, it ought to have been driving on the left side.

4. The MACT also noted, testimony of the driver [R4W1] basis Court questions to him, that he was in the middle of the road, while the Wagon R car was overtaking a truck which was driving on the left side of the other carriageway.

5. On this basis, the MACT concluded that it was the sole negligence of the bus driver.

6. The Court has perused the site plan which has been filed, as also the testimony of PW-4 [alleged eyewitness] and R4W1 [driver of the offending vehicle].

7. As regards testimony of PW-4, there is nothing much to be gleaned from the same, considering that PW-4 was running a hotel/dhaba and was sitting outside when the accident took place. In his cross-examination, he stated that he only saw the accident and then moved towards the site of the accident, but did not see the manner in which the accident took place.

8. As regards the testimony of R4W1, which has been heavily relied upon by Mr. Qadri, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of claimants/respondents, the Court questions become relevant. Same are extracted as under:

"Court Question:- Was there any road divider on the road? A:-No.

Court Question:- In which lane you were driving the bus?

A:-I was driving the bus in the middle lane of the road.

Court Question:- In which lane truck was being driven?

A:-In its left lane.

Court Question:- In which lane car was being driven.

A:- Car was being driven in the middle of the road."

9. As per the site plan, which is also extracted hereunder, it does appear that the bus was moving towards the middle of the road where there was no divider, whereas it ought to have been driving on the left side.

10. Even otherwise, there was no reason why it was veering towards the middle of the road, where it was prone to collide with vehicles approaching from the opposite direction, in this case the unfortunate Wagon R.

11. Considering that the proceedings before the MACT are based on preponderance of probability, the Court does not see anything amiss in the findings of the MACT in this regard.

12. Further, it is also noted that the FIR was registered against the driver of the offending bus and chargesheet has also been filed.

13. Considering the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ranjeet v Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine 497, the issue would stand fortified in favour of the claimants.

14. On the second issue, as far as quantum of the income is concerned, based on the ITR, Mr. Soni, Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company states that variable pay ought not to have been considered.

15. The Court has perused the salary record, which has been produced b