$~52 & 53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010292152026 + MAC.APP. 409/2026, CM APPL. 42749/2026, CM APPL. 42750/2026 & CM APPL. 42751/2026. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. JPN Shahi, Advocate. versus SH RAJU PARIKSHIT SINCE DIED DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Adv for claimants. # CNR No. DLHC010299932026 + MAC.APP. 420/2026 & CM APPL. 44069/2026 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. JPN Shahi, Advocate. versus SH RAJU PARIKSHIT (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Adv for claimants. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. These appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the impugned award dated 05th February 2026 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], North East District, Karkardooma Courts, 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 17/08/2026 at 11:38:01 Delhi, in MACT No. 14830/2015 and MACT No. 14831/2015, whereby compensation of Rs. 3,18,500/- along with interest @9% per annum, was awarded for injuries sustained by Raju Parikshit, and Rs.22,07,700/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, was awarded for the death of Smt. Poonam was awarded, respectively. 2. The accident occurred on 10th April 2014 at about 2:00 pm, when Raju Parikshit along with Smt. Poonam were travelling by motorcycle, and were hit on the backside by offending vehicle. The accident resulted in the death of Smt. Poonam and the injuries to Raju Parikshit, who subsequently passed away during the MACT proceedings. 3. Mr. J P N Shahi, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, submits that the alleged offending vehicle, which was insured with appellant/Insurance Company, has been wrongly identified and the vehicle has been falsely implicated. In this regard, he relies upon the testimony of R2W4, Pranab Mahay, Manager of appellant/Insurance Company, who stated that the vehicle bearing registration no. UP-17-T-2379, which was later charge-sheeted, was not mentioned in the FIR. He further relies upon the testimony of R2W3, Suresh Chand Sharma, driver of the said vehicle, who stated that he was falsely implicated in this case and the said vehicle was deployed elsewhere at that particular time. 4. Counsel for respondents/claimants, appears through VC, and submits that there was only a discrepancy in the letter ‘T’ in the registration number of the vehicle mentioned in the FIR and the charge-sheet. He further submits that the description of the vehicle as a Tavera was correctly recorded. Hence, the question of involvement of a different vehicle does not arise. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:38:01 5. The Court had directed that a copy of the FIR and the charge sheet be placed on record to be examined by the Court. Mr. Shahi, handed over the same to the Court. 6. It is noted that the FIR mentions the Tavera car bearing registration No. UP-17-2379, and the charge-sheet also mentions the same registration number. The Court does not find any material alteration in the description of the vehicle so as to sustain the allegation that the vehicle was subsequently planted. The missing capital letter ‘T’, may not be material, considering that a registration number UP-17-T-2379 would, in any case, be invalid without the ‘T’ having regard to the registration number series ordinarily allotted. 7. The plea of the Insurance Company cannot be sustained, particularly in view of the fact the description of the offending vehicle being a Tavera both in the FIR and the charge sheet. 8. Mr. Shahi, further pointed out to the testimony of R2W1, Harjeet Singh, director of M/s Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd., who deposes that he could not produce the GPRS tracking record nor any ledger record or log book for the deployment of the said offending vehicle on the day of the accident i.e. 10th April 2014. 9. Furthermore, Mr. Maninder Singh, Legal and Compliance Department of M/s Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd, who as deposed as R2W2, also could not do the same. Quite otherwise, he stated that he did not remember the period during which the aforesaid vehicle was given to the driver. Further, he stated that no action had been taken against the driver. 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 17/08/2026 at 11:38:01 10. There being no evidence placed by the owner and the Legal Officer of the company as regard the deployment of the car on that day, the plea of the Insurance Company that it was wrongly implicated cannot be accepted. 11. The testimony of R2W3, the driver, may also be considered in this regard, as submitted by Mr. Shahi. He stated that, owing to the elections in Noida, he was at his village, Chola, which is about 55 kilometres from Ghaziabad, where the accident had occurred, and that his vehicle was also parked there. However, no documentary evidence or other corroboration has been produced in support of this assertion. Moreover, he admitted that he had not filed any complaint alleging false implication following the registration of the FIR. 12. There being no evidence of any protest against the alleged false implication. The plea of the Insurance Company cannot be sustained. 13. Mr. Shahi, further argues that there is a delay in the registration of the FIR. The FIR was registered on 16th April 2014, six days after the said accident. However, apart from the delay, there is nothing on record to suggest that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated, particularly as no protest was filed alleging false implication. 14. Mr. Shahi, counsel for appellant, has raised another issue regarding quantum of compensation, contending that the assessment of benchmark income of the deceased Smt. Poonam has been erroneously assessed on the basis of the minimum wages applicable to a semi-skilled worker in Delhi, i.e., Rs. 9,438/-. In paragraph 23 of the MACT award, a sentence before the assessment, the Court has noted that “the income of the deceased is to be 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 17/08/2026 at 11:38:01 assessed as that of unskilled labour as per minimum wages applicable to Delhi”. 15. On this basis, Mr. Shahi submits that the income applicable to a semi- skilled worker, i.e., Rs. 9,438/-, was inadvertently taken into consideration. However, in the opinion of the Court, the reference to ‘unskilled labour’ appears to have been inadvertently made, particularly in view of the preceding narration, wherein the statement of the surviving relative that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from tailoring work has been noted. It has also been noted that a certificate in this regard was filed, though the same was not legible. 16. In these circumstances, the grounds in the appeal are not made out, and accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. 17. By order dated 22nd July 2026, it was directed that the entire compensation amount, along with accrued interest, be deposited before the MACT. If not deposited the same be deposited within the next six weeks. Since the appeal has been dismissed, it is directed that the compensation amount so deposited shall be released to the claimants in terms of the directions passed by the MACT in the impugned award. 18. Statutory amount, if deposited by the Appellant be refunded. 19. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 12, 2026/RK/zb 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 17/08/2026 at 11:38:01