$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011448132013 + MAC.APP. 864/2013 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Mr. Amit Gaur and Mr. Kaarrtikey Parashar, Advs. versus SMT ASAMEEN & ORS .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 10.08.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing impugned award dated 09th July 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MACT No. 25/2012, whereby compensation of Rs.9,11,968/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum was awarded. 2. The accident in question occurred on 04th January 2012, when Mr. Hifajul Rehman (hereinafter, ‘deceased’), was travelling in a Maruti Wagon R car from Meerut to Ghaziabad. When he reached near Masuri, Ghaziabad, U.P. a Tata Sumo/offending vehicle hit the Maruti Wagon R car resulting in fatal injuries to deceased. He was 36 years of age, working as a halwai and claimed to be earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Claim was filed by his legal representatives and compensation was awarded. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:34:18 3. Mr. Pradeep Gaur, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, pleads that there was contributory negligence on behalf of deceased. FIR No. 3A/2012 was registered at the behest of respondent no.8/driver of Tata Sumo -offending vehicle, who testified as R3W1 stating that the Maruti Wagon R car had actually jumped over the divider and collided with the Tata Sumo/offending vehicle. 4. Mr. Gaur has drawn attention of this Court to two different site plans. The one which has been filed under FIR No. 3/2012, which was registered on behalf of the complaint made by legal representatives of deceased and the other site plan which was prepared under FIR No. 3A/2012. The two site plans seem to have a completely contradictory perspective, seemingly supporting the narration of facts given by respective claimants. 5. MACT relied upon the testimony of an eye witness, Mr. Yusuf Khan (‘PW3’). He stated that he was travelling along with the deceased and two other passengers in the Wagon R car. Tata Sumo/offending vehicle was being driven on the wrong side and hit the Wagon R car, as a result of which, multiple injuries were received by the passengers and the deceased passed away. The cross-examination of PW3 only elicits questions posed by counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, that it was the Wagon R car which jumped over the divider and hit the Tata Sumo/offending vehicle. These have been comprehensively denied by PW3 in the cross-examination. 6. No other evidence has been brought forth by the appellant/Insurance Company in order to support their plea that the accident occurred due to the negligence of Maruti Wagon R car. There is no Mechanical Inspection Report (‘MIR’) on record. It was also noted by the MACT in paragraph 12 that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:34:18 site plan was not proved by respondent no. 8/driver of Tata Sumo-offending vehicle, which had been placed on record. Moreover, these documents were not put to the witness (PW3), in order that the same could have been examined. PW3 was also not cross examined by respondent no.8/driver of Tata Sumo/offending vehicle, who preferred to remain absent from the proceedings after filing his written statement. 7. Negligence is proved on the test of preponderance of probabilities and not the criminal burden of beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance on FIRs can only provide an extra lens to the courts but cannot be determinative, particularly when facts and circumstances of the case suggest otherwise. 8. Reliance may also be placed upon the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Shehnaj Begum & Ors. 2026:DHC:13169, where the Court traversed the law on res ipsa loquitor in motor accident cases. It was held that the proceedings before MACT are in the nature of an inquiry and therefore, assessment of negligence has to be conducted on the test of preponderance of probabilities. Relevant findings are noted as under: “Summarizing 38. From the above discussion relating to the nature of inquiry before the Tribunal, the operation of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the applicable standard of proof, three aspects emerge clearly. 39. First, that the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are in nature of an inquiry and are not hemmed in by rules of procedure or evidence. The Supreme Court in Shila Datta (supra) [passages extracted in paragraph 20 (a) above], has elaborated on this aspect. Essentially, a claim under This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:34:18 Section 165 of the MV Act, is neither a suit nor an adversarial lis. 40. Tribunal holds an inquiry and makes an award to determine compensation, which ought to be just and reasonable. The procedure to be followed is summarised in the best discretion of the Tribunal. It has the power under Section 169 of MV Act to summon persons possessing special knowledge of the matters relevant to the inquiry. 41. In Anita Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court emphasised that fault may not be found merely because Tribunals do not examine some of the best eyewitnesses, as in a criminal trial, but should do their best to analyse the material placed on record by the parties. 42. Having clearly sketched the contours of the procedure undertaken by a Tribunal, it brings us to the second issue, which is determination of negligence. The nature of the accident and the basic facts surrounding the same are presented before the Tribunal in the form of a DAR (Detailed Accident Report), or through an FIR, or a recording in a police diary, along with the claim for compensation. In order to arrive at an assessment of negligence and, therefore, consequential liability in tort law, the principle of res ipsa loquitur, particularly in accident cases, is often brought into play. 43. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur constitutes an exception to the general rule that the burden of proving negligence lies upon the claimant. The facts, “tell its own story” and “speak for itself”. The fact of the accident itself sometimes constitutes evidence of negligence. The principal function of the maxim is to prevent injustice, that would be caused to a plaintiff who would otherwise be compelled to prove the precise cause of the accident and responsibility of the defendant, when the facts are unknown to plaintiff but This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:34:18 lie only within the knowledge of defendant. The burden then shifts to the defendant, who can, by leading evidence, rebut the inference drawn by the Court based on the doctrine. … 45. Therefore, for application of the principle, it must be shown that the offending vehicle was under the management of the defendant and that the accident was such that, in the ordinary course of things, it would not have happened if those who were in management had used proper care. Having reached a reasonable inference based on the facts of the accident and being presented with a defence raised by defendants that they exercised care to avert foreseeable harm, the issue before the Tribunal would be how to balance the two aspects and what parameter is to be applied in measuring this balance, or in assessing which side the scales tilt. 46. This brings us to the third aspect, which is the test to be applied. It is well settled that the test or the burden of proof which applies is not that of beyond a reasonable doubt (as in criminal cases), but on the test of preponderance of probabilities.” (emphasis added) 9. Therefore, the MACT has rightly reached its conclusion on the basis of testimony of PW3 i.e. injured eyewitness. Therefore, the Court finds no reason to sustain the plea of appellant/Insurance Company in this regard. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11. By order dated 25th September 2013, this Court had directed the deposit of the entire awarded amount, along with accrued interest with the Registrar General of this Court and release of 50% in favour of respondents/claimants This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:34:18 as per the terms and conditions fixed by the Tribunal through UCO Bank, High Court Branch. 12. In view of the dismissal of this appeal, balance amount be released to respondents/claimants as lump sum amount, considering that the accident occurred in 2012 and the appeal has been pending since 2013. 13. Statutory deposit, if any, shall be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company, only if the order of deposit has been complied with. 14. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 10, 2026/ak/sp This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:34:18