$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 339/2026 & CM APPL. 34155-34157/2026 SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. versus MANISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 17.07.2026 1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company assailing award dated 21st January 2026, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in MACT No. 360/2022, whereby compensation of Rs.1,03,199/- along with interest at the rate of 9% was awarded [‘impugned award’]. 2. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, states that the accident occurred on 22nd April 2022, when the injured/respondent no.1 was returning home on his motorcycle, and an Innova car, allegedly driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and collided with him, resulting in injuries. There was an absence of proof of valid permit, despite which the Tribunal fastened liability upon appellant/Insurance Company. The MACT, in paragraph 64 of the impugned award, noted the defence of appellant/Insurance Company that, since the Innova car [‘offending vehicle’] was a commercial vehicle operating as a taxi, and did 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 24/07/2026 at 12:21:25 not have a valid and effective permit at the time of the accident, appellant/Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated. The driver and owner, on the other hand, raised a plea that the permit had expired only a day prior to the accident and the law provided grace period of 30 days to get the permit re-validated. 3. R1W1 [Sh. Nishant Tripathi] was cross-examined by counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, and deposed that it was a matter of record that, on the date of the accident, the permit had expired. However, on re- examination, he admitted that, as on the date of cross-examination, offending vehicle had a valid permit, as it had been renewed. 4. The MACT noted that the vehicle had been renewed and was valid from 26th April 2022 till 16th April 2026. The MACT, relying upon the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Dr. Narasimulu Nandini Memorial Education Trust v. Banu Begum & Ors., Miscellaneous First Appeal No. (‘MFA’) 202022/2016, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Yasmin Begum & Ors., MFA 3338/2015, and on an interpretation of Section 81(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘MV Act’], held that the renewal of permit would take effect from the date of its expiry. 5. The aforesaid issue has been also considered by this Court in IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vinod Yadav & Ors. 2026:DHC:5532, wherein the matter had been considered on same grounds, and it was held that the statutory deeming fiction under Section 81(5) of the MV Act results in the renewal of the permit from the date of its expiry. The relevant portion from Vinod Yadav (supra) has been reproduced herein below: “10. Taking into account these submissions, the Court is of the opinion that Section 81(5) of MV Act provides a blanket 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 24/07/2026 at 12:21:25 statutory protection for a permit renewal to be valid from the date of expiry of the previous permit. There is no doubt that renewal of the permit was applied for in July 2009 albeit after the accident, but that does not take away the fact that renewal obtained in August 2009 will operate from May 2009 onwards, which was when the previous permit expired. 11. There is no caveat in the statute that the reasons for delay have to be considered. On the contrary, Section 81(3) of the MV Act provides that application for renewal can be filed even after the expiry of permit and states as under: “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in that sub- section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.” (emphasis added) 12. Therefore, the question raised as to for what reason there was a delay in applying for a permit or whether the driver/owner became wiser after the accident and applied for the permit subsequently, may not be relevant for the purposes of considering, whether the permit was valid on the date of the accident or not. The admission provided by counsel for respondent no.6/driver and respondent no.7/owner, as recorded in the impugned order, cannot dilute, erode or extinguish the right of the driver/owner to plead the same. 13. In the opinion of this Court, since the permit was valid on the date of accident by virtue of the subsequent renewal, the question of whether it was being applied for personal use or commercial use may also not be relevant for discussion. (emphasis added) 6. Accordingly, in view of the above, and having regard to the settled legal position that the permit stands renewed from the date of its expiry by virtue of statutory deeming fiction under Section 81(5) of the MV Act, appeal stands 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 24/07/2026 at 12:21:25 dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 8. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JULY 17, 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 24/07/2026 at 12:21:25