* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 15^th January 2026 Pronounced on : 1st April 2026 Uploaded on : 2nd April 2026 + MAC.APP. 173/2016 USHA DEVI & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.

versus MOHAN LAL & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate for Respondent no.2.

+ MAC.APP. 725/2015 & CM APPL. 44495/2025 MOHAN LAL & ANR .....Appellants Through: Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate.

versus USHA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for Respondent nos.1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned award dated 2^nd July 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, (North-West), Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT No.433/2008. The cross-appeal has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Incident

2. On 27^th February 2008 at about 12:15 P.M., Sh. Prem Lal (since deceased), along with his brother-in-law Sh. Amardeep Singh, father-in-law Sh. Kripal Singh and some other relatives were going to Agra, Uttar Pradesh from Delhi by Indica car bearing registration No. DL-8CJ-2670, driven by the deceased. When they reached NH-2 near Fatiha Pul, PS Farha, Mathura, U.P., the offending vehicle, i.e. U.P. Roadways Bus bearing registration No. UP-80-AC-9090, driven by Mr. Mohan Lal (hereinafter referred to as ‘driver’), allegedly at a very high speed, rashly and negligently came from the side of Agra and hit the Indica car with great force. As a result, the occupants, including the deceased, sustained injuries. During the course of treatment, Sh. Prem Lal passed away.

3. Mohan Lal, who was the driver of offending vehicle, filed the written statement stating that he was driving the offending vehicle at normal speed and properly. When he reached Fatiha Pul and was descending from the railway bridge, the Indica car was coming from the side of Delhi at a fast speed and was on the wrong side of the road, and it struck against the driver side of the offending vehicle. He tried his best to avoid the accident, but driver of Indica car could not control and dashed against the offending vehicle, due to which the accident occurred.

4. Post the framing of issues, the following witnesses were examined:

(i) PW1, Smt. Usha Devi - wife of the deceased; (ii) PW2, Sh. Devender Singh - eye-witness; and (iii) R1W1, Mohan Lal - driver of the offending vehicle.

Impugned Award

5. Regarding the issue whether accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending car, the MACT examined the evidence and reached the conclusion that the accident was caused by Mohan Lal, who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and had caused the death of Sh. Prem Lal. The Indica car was on the wrong side of the road due to traffic diversion, and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Indica car.

Compensation

6. Total compensation of Rs.7,58,200/- was awarded along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The components are tabulated as under:

Submission on behalf of Driver of the offending vehicle

7. The following submissions were placed by Mr. Shadab Khan, counsel for driver of the offending vehicle:

i. The issue of negligence was decided by the MACT primarily on the testimony of PW2, Sh. Devender Singh, who was an interested witness, being real brother of Smt. Usha Devi. It was contended that he appeared only to improve the case of the claimants.

ii. FIR was lodged at the behest of one Amardeep Singh, who is the son of Sh. Kripal Singh, owner of Indica car. FIR did not mention that PW2 was travelling with them. However, PW2 stated in his affidavit of evidence that he, along with Prem Lal, were going to Agra. Further, although PW2 stated that the police recorded the statement of the injured person regarding the accident, he did not state that his own statement was recorded by the police, nor did he claim that he sustained any injuries. He also did not state that