$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 546/2018 RADHA SARKAR & ORS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Saurabh Kansal, Mrs. Pallavi S Kansal, Ms. Vanshika Kapoor, Mr. Suraj K Jha, Mr. Manish Kumar and Ms. Ritul Sharma, Advs. versus NETAI DAS & ANR (BAJAJ ALLIANZE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD) .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. This appeal has been filed assailing order dated 12th March 2018, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’], in MACT No. 14757/2015, whereby the claim petition filed by legal representatives of the deceased/Arun Sarkar, who died in an accident dated 11th October 2013, was dismissed. 2. On 11th October 2013 [date of the accident], the deceased/Arun Sarkar was on a morning walk along with his minor son [Apratim Sarkar], in his native village-Gopal Nagar, West Bengal, where he had gone to visit his relatives. Deceased/Arun Sarkar and his family were otherwise residents of Delhi. While the deceased/Arun Sarkar was on his way back home, he was allegedly hit from behind by a Scorpio car [‘offending vehicle’] bearing 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 10/07/2026 at 11:39:18 registration no. WB-26S-3470, which was being driven rashly and negligently. He underwent treatment at R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, till 21st October 2013, and thereafter at Samaritan Clinic (P) Ltd. in Kolkata, before returning to Delhi where he was treated at St. Stephen’s Hospital, Delhi and ultimately succumbed to his injuries on 26th December 2013. 3. There was no immediate registration of FIR in Kolkata, and identification of the offending vehicle was based solely on the testimony of Apratim Sarkar [PW-2], which was tendered by way of an affidavit dated 06th August 2016, after Apratim Sarkar/PW-2 attained the age of majority. 4. Mr. Saurabh Kansal, counsel for appellants, submits that Apratim Sarkar/PW-2 was duly cross-examined and gave specific details of the accident, including the circumstances surrounding it. He further submits that there was nothing in the cross-examination conducted by the Insurance Company [respondent no. 2 herein] to discredit the testimony of Apratim Sarkar/PW-2. 5. The MACT did not find testimony of Apratim Sarkar/PW-2 to be credible, noting that there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and that registration number of the offending vehicle had not been mentioned therein. The FIR was otherwise lodged at the behest of a complainant namely Asish Basu of village Gopalnagar who stated that the accident was caused due to the driver of an unknown vehicle. The said FIR was lodged on 29th December 2013. In relation thereto, Apratim Sarkar/PW-2, in his cross-examination stated “I do not know whether any other person lodged any police report regarding the accident or not”. 6. Radha Sarkar, wife of the deceased/Arun Sarkar, however, moved an 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 10/07/2026 at 11:39:18 RTI application dated 23rd December 2013 before the Public Information Officer, Bhowanipore Police Station, Kolkata-700026, West Bengal, mentioning registration number of the offending vehicle, and stating that the FIR had still not been registered. She sought information regarding the criminal proceedings as well as the name and address of the person in whose name the offending vehicle was registered. Thereafter, a response dated 25th March 2014 was received from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, West Bengal stating that the deceased/Arun Sarkar was a member of the Oliance Club, Gopalnagar, of which the complainant/Asish Basu was the Secretary, and that on his information, case no. 486/2013 was registered against the unknown vehicle under Sections 279/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code [‘IPC’]. The response, signed by SI Dipankar Bhattacharjee, further stated that during investigation none of the eyewitnesses had come forward, but on basis of the information furnished in the RTI application, they had traced the offending vehicle which was owned by one Netai Das and had commenced the investigation accordingly. 7. Upon a query from the Court, Mr. Saurabh Kansal, counsel for appellants, states that he has no further information regarding the said investigation. 8. It appears to this Court that no steps were taken by Apratim Sarkar, son of the deceased/Arun Sarkar, since he was a minor at the time of the accident and efforts must have been directed towards obtaining treatment, first in Kolkata and thereafter in Delhi, where the deceased/Arun Sarkar ultimately succumbed to his injuries. The complaint lodged by complainant/Asish Basu in Kolkata seems to be an independent act, considering that he was the Secretary of Oliance Club, of which the deceased/Arun Sarkar was a member. 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 10/07/2026 at 11:39:18 Family of the deceased/Arun Sarkar, however, had placed the relevant information before Bhowanipore Police Station through the RTI application dated 23rd December 2013, in response to which it was informed that the investigation would proceed. 9. The specifics given by Apratim Sarkar, son of the deceased/Arun Sarkar, in his testimony persuade this Court to remand the matter back to the MACT for consideration of the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle. 10. The MACT may requisition details of the continuing investigation, if any, through Bhowanipore Police Station or any other authority. 11. Accordingly, the issue of involvement of the offending vehicle shall be reconsidered, in view of what has been stated above. 12. Mr. A.K. Soni, counsel for respondent no.2/Insurance Company, has taken a note of these issues. 13. The claimants, as well as respondent no.2/Insurance Company shall be at a liberty to raise their respective pleas in this regard, as well as to place on record further evidence, if so required. 14. List before the MACT on 03rd August 2026. 15. The MACT may endeavour to conclude this matter within six months. 16. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 17. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 6, 2026/MK/ya 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 10/07/2026 at 11:39:18