* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 11^th March 2026 Pronounced on : 17th April 2026 Uploaded on : 18^th April 2026 + MAC.APP. 702/2019, CM APPL. 33839/2019 & CM APPL.

12711/2026 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Ms. Suman Bagga and Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocates versus REKHA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra & Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Advs. for claimants CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal filed by the Insurance Company assails the award dated 30^th April 2019 passed by MACT, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi in MACT No.50441/2016.

2. The Insurance Company effectively questions the compensation granted by the MACT on the basis that the negligence and, therefore, liability was fastened on the driver/owner of the TSR in which the deceased claimant was travelling, which was involved in an accident where a truck dashed into it and then ran away from the spot. Being a hit-and-run case, the Insurance Company asserts that the claim should fall under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’), on the principle of no fault liability, since there was no negligence on the part of the TSR’s driver.

The Incident

3. The accident occurred on 30^th March 2009, when Sh. Ved Prakash (the deceased), a cleaner with Delhi Transport Corporation, was travelling in TSR bearing registration no. DL-1RE-5310 as a paid passenger. At about 3:15 a.m., when they reached the chowk at Sarai Peepal Thala, GTK Road, the driver of the TSR tried to cross the chowk where blinkers were blinking. Suddenly, a truck came from the fruit mandi gate and as both vehicles were at high speed, they dashed into each other, and the accident occurred. The truck ran away from the spot as TSR turned turtle. The deceased was crushed under the wheel of the truck and died on the spot.

4. The claim petition mentioned that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the TSR and the truck, as both were being driven rashly and negligently.

5. FIR No.67/09 was registered at PS Adarsh Nagar under Sections 279/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860. Post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, and the cause of death was opined to be cranio-cerebral damage consequent to roadside accident.

The Impugned Award

6. The TSR driver (respondent no.5 herein) and owner of the TSR (respondent no.6 herein) filed their written statements stating that no accident had been due to the negligence of the driver of TSR. The TSR was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company filed its written statement stating that the accident took place due to sole negligence on the part of the unknown/untraceable truck.

7. While deciding issue no. 1, the MACT relied upon the testimony of PW1, Sh. Shani Dev, who deposed that he was passing through the chowk Sarai Pipal Thala, GTK road at about 3:10 a.m., when the TSR collided with the truck. According to him, the offending truck had passed more than the middle of the road and was turning left with indicators on. He further stated that the TSR’s headlight was not working, and the driver took a sudden cut towards the left after noticing the offending truck, but lost balance.

8. Since the offending truck was turning, it scratched the right side of the TSR. Due to the sudden application of brakes, a passenger sitting on the back seat of TSR was thrown out and crushed under the back wheel of the truck. 9. He further deposed that one of the persons present at the spot of accident gave a call to the police and somebody took the purse of the victim and found an I-card. As the police did not reach the spot, he saw the I-card and went to the address of the victim to inform the deceased’s family. He met the son of the deceased at the address mentioned in the I-card, who noted down his name and address.

10. He deposed that the accident occurred due to the sheer negligence of the driver of the TSR and, to some extent, that of the offending truck. He stated that the driver