$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011329882013 + MAC.APP. 839/2013 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain, Advocates. versus MUKESH KUMAR & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Addl. AG, Haryana with Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Ms. Srishti Jain, Advocates for Respondent No. 2/State of Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 11.08.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging impugned award dated 07th June 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in Suit No.243/2012 awarding compensation of Rs.4,57,080/- along with 9% interest in relation to injuries sustained by claimant. 2. The accident occurred on 14th April 2012, when claimant driving his Eicher tempo near Faridabad Bus Stand, Ring Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi behind bus bearing registration no. HR-55P-1041 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle’), when the bus suddenly came to a halt in the middle of the road and due to the sudden breaking, respondent no.1’s/claimant’s vehicle collided with the bus and caused him grievous injuries. 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 11:35:25 3. Ms. Shruti Jain, counsel for Insurance Company, pleads that the concerned bus was not involved in the accident, since as per the written statement filed by driver and owner, at the time of the accident the bus was actually on a trip from Baidnath to Delhi and had to reach Delhi at 08:30 a.m. in the morning. However, no proof has been filed on record in support of this, nor was there any evidence produced by the driver and owner before the MACT. The only evidence which was recorded was of the claimant (‘PW1’) and the clerk from Sushruta Trauma Centre (‘PW2’). 4. Testimony of PW1 is detailed in its narration, as also providing details about his continued treatment. FIR was also registered on the same date. In the cross examination, there was no confrontation by the Insurance Company, relating to the non-involvement of the bus. Moreover, the MACT in the impugned award has specifically noted that, not only the FIR, but also the Medico-Legal Certificate (‘MLC’), Mechanical Inspection Report (‘MIR’) and photographs of the offending vehicle, showing the same in damaged condition at the site of the accident. A statement of eyewitness Om Hari alias Sonu is also importance here. 5. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decisions of Supreme Court in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 and Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. 2025:INSC:600 where the Supreme Court held that an inference of negligence can be drawn by the MACT on the basis of FIR and charge sheet. 6. Relevant findings of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet (supra) are extracted as under: “4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further 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 11:35:25 evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to the claimants.” (emphasis added) 7. In Meera Bai (supra), the relevant observations of Supreme Court are extracted as under: “2. The claimants before the Tribunal have filed an appeal from the order of the High Court which allowed the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the claim petition for reason of no eyewitness having been examined to prove the rash and negligent driving. 3. On facts, it needs to be stated that the accident occurred on 29.01.2015 when the deceased was travelling pillion in a motorbike driven and owned by the second respondent. The FIR was lodged against the owner driver of the vehicle for the offence of rash and negligent driving. A charge sheet was filed against the owner driver. The owner driver filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying the rash and negligent driving on his part, however he did not mount the box to depose that it was not due to his fault that the accident occurred. 4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established.” (emphasis added) 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 11:35:25 8. In the light of the matter, plea of the Insurance Company is not sustainable. 9. Another issue regarding quantum of compensation to the extent of the loss of income which was granted at Rs.85,280/- has been raised. The MACT records that the claimant had stated that he was working as the driver of a truck and was earning Rs.12,000/-. However, since there was no corroborative evidence, minimum wages of a skilled worker were taken at Rs.8,528/- for a period of 10 months. 10. The treatment record notes that he had received fracture of shaft of femur and abdomen injuries. He was first admitted in Sushruta Trauma Centre at 06.15 a.m., then treated in St. Stephen Hospital for treatment of polytrauma with duodenal transaction (3rd part) with bilateral shaft of femur fracture and two units of blood were transfused. On 12th June 2012, he was further treated at Safdarjung Hospital for duodenal perforation. Thereafter, he continued treatment with Dr. Chandra for fractures of both thighs and was advised physiotherapy. 11. Therefore, the MACT’s assessment computing loss of income for 10 months on the basis of the treatment record is not amiss and shall continue to be sustained. 12. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 13. By order dated 13th September 2013, directions were given for deposit of the entire compensation amount with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General of this Court and directions were given for release of 60% in favour of claimant. 14. Considering that the appeal has been dismissed, balance amount along 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 11:35:25 with accrued interest will be disbursed in favour of claimant as lump sum by liquidating all the fixed deposit receipts (‘FDRs’). 15. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company. 16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 11, 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 11:35:25