$~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 1380/2026 & CM APPL. 41529/2026 GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Mr. Rattan K Mishra & Ms. Nakshatra Bhasin Adv. versus VIKASH PAL & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 10.07.2026 1. Pursuant to the previous order, it is informed that counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3 have been served through WhatsApp with the order passed by this Court on 7th July 2026, whereby the matter was listed for hearing today. 2. Screenshots of said WhatsApp messages noting the confirmation received from Mohd. Furkran, Advocate, and Mohd. Fahim Akram, Advocate, is evident. However, there is no appearance on their behalf. 3. Considering the matter is listed for 15th July 2026 before the MACT, and in order to avoid there being any further delay on this issue, the Court is inclined to dispose of this petition. 4. This petition has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing order dated 25th May 2026, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’], in MACT Case No. 849/2022 [‘impugned order’]. 5. Vide impugned order, the MACT rejected the application filed by 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 16/07/2026 at 11:17:38 petitioner/Insurance Company under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘MV Act’], seeking directions to call the Investigating Officer [‘IO’] of the case as a Court witness [‘application’]. 6. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, counsel for petitioner/Insurance Company, submits that vide order dated 18th May 2026, the matter was renotified for respondent’s evidence, if any, and was fixed for final arguments on 25th May 2026. 7. On 25th May 2026, however, the application filed by petitioner/Insurance Company under Section 169 of the MV Act was rejected on the ground that it was not relevant to the additional evidence led by the claimants, and that the Insurance Company had already closed their evidence. 8. The impugned order further rejected the application on the ground that there was no material ground for summoning the IO, which Mr. Sameer Nandwani, counsel for petitioner/Insurance Company, states is contrary to the reasons set out in the said application, particularly that an allegation of implantation of the offending vehicle in collusion was made, that the first information report [‘FIR’] was lodged after more than 100 days, and that the deposition of the injured persons, namely Vikas and Preeti, did not indicate that they had ever seen the particular TSR in question. 9. On 18th May 2026, the MACT noted that PW2 and PW3 had been examined, and that the opportunity for cross-examination had been given and discharged. The respondents were also given an opportunity to lead additional evidence, ‘if any’, on the next day, 25th May 2026. 10. On 25th May 2026, when an application was moved under Section 169 of the MV Act, seeking directions to summon the IO, the same was dismissed vide the impugned order. The context in which the IO has been 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 16/07/2026 at 11:17:38 summoned is noted above as the insurance company had raised a serious contention regarding the alleged implantation of the offending vehicle. 11. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, counsel for Insurance Company, has drawn attention of this Court to Section 169 of MV Act, which is extracted as under: “169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals.— (1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.” 12. In the light of above, since an opportunity was given to the insurance company to record further evidence, if any, in the opinion of this Court it cannot be restricted merely to what the additional evidence could have been given by the respondents, particularly, since the powers under Section 169 of the MV Act are critical for the purposes of having a complete and holistic inquiry before passing an award. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the MACT shall summon the IO with the requisite documentation that is sought by the insurance company for examination. 14. Needless to state, the Insurance Company and the respondents shall 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 16/07/2026 at 11:17:38 be entitled to examine the IO, as well as the MACT, if so required. 15. A similar order was passed by this Court in CM(M) 504/2026 vide order dated 24th April 2026, which has been pointed out by Mr. Sameer Nandwani, counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. 16. MACT will ensure that the process of summoning the IO and completion of the examination and cross-examination is done expeditiously and without any unnecessary delay. 17. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 18. Pending application is rendered infructuous. 19. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 10, 2026/sm/bp 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 16/07/2026 at 11:17:38