$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010105792026 + MAC.APP. 191/2026 & CM APPL. 17419/2026 ZAREENA BEGUM & ANR. .....Appellant Through: Ms. Pinki Talukdar, Advocate. versus PRADEEP AND OTHERS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate. Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advoeate for R-1 And R-2. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chhetry, Advocate for Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. This appeal has been filed assailing award dated 10th February 2026, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in MACT. No. 38/2022, whereby compensation of Rs. 31,59,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum was awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased/Rahisuddin [‘impugned award’]. 2. Vide impugned award, the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the awarded amount, with a right to recover 50% thereof from the injured/Nikki, on account of contributory negligence. 3. This appeal has been filed by parents of the deceased/Rahisuddin, namely, Zareena Begum and Deen Mohammad, as well as by son of 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 11:38:28 deceased, namely, Master Bilal Saifi. 4. As regards apportionment of compensation, the MACT has awarded entire compensation to the wife of deceased, Yasmeen Saifi, and minor son, Master Bilal Saifi, whereas the parents have been awarded only a consortium amount of Rs.44,000/- each. The apportionment is as under: 5. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for Yasmeen Saifi, states that considering that the apportionment of compensation is contested between parents of the deceased and Yasmeen Saifi, she ought to have been impleaded as a party in the appeal. 6. Accordingly, upon an oral prayer being made in this regard, her request for impleadment is accepted, and she shall be impleaded as respondent no. 4 in said appeal. 7. Ms. Pinki Talukdar, counsel for appellant, shall file an amended memo of parties in this regard. 8. Counsel for appellant states that there was an issue raised by them regarding the legality of awarding compensation to Yasmeen Saifi, who had allegedly left the marital company of Rahisuddin and married one Shahnawaz Saifi on 9th June 2020, according to the Muslim law and rites. Photocopy of the marriage certificate/nikahnama has been filed. 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 11:38:28 9. An application was filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] by parents of the deceased for deleting the Yasmeen Saifi from the array of parties basis that she was not the legal wife of the deceased at the time of filing of the petition. 10. Yasmeen Saifi filed a separate application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’], stating that the nikahnama is a fabricated document. 11. By order dated 21st November 2025, both applications were dismissed. 12. The order dated 21st November 2025, passed by the MACT on both the applications, i.e. application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC and the application under Section 340 of the CrPC, has been perused by the Court. It seems that the Court has not really appreciated the evidence which was placed by parents of the deceased regarding marriage of Yasmeen Saifi and Shahnawaz Saifi. 13. Ms. Talukdar, counsel for appellant, states that in view of the aforesaid nikahnama, in respect of which no evidence has been led, Yasmeen Saifi would not have been dependent upon the deceased, as she had already married someone else prior to the death of Rahisuddin. 14. Countering the same, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, contends that during her cross-examination before the MACT, Zareen Begum/mother of deceased, stated that they had disowned their son, Rahisuddin from their movable and immovable properties much prior to his death. He, therefore, states that parents of the deceased also ought not to be treated as dependents. 15. The aforesaid aspects need to be considered by the MACT, for which the parties would be permitted to lead additional evidence. 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 11:38:28 16. The evidence which has already been led by the parties shall not be displaced, and only additional evidence to the extent of the nikahnama shall be considered by the MACT. The contesting parties shall be allowed to cross-examine any witnesses in this regard, if so required. 17. As per Mr. Pankaj Gupta, counsel for Yasmeen Saifi, the Insurance Company has already deposited the compensation amount. 18. In the meantime, no further amounts shall be released to Yasmeen Saifi, Zareena Begum and Deen Mohammad, considering the counter allegations made by the parties. 19. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the MACT, and same shall be disposed of within 6 months. 20. List before the MACT on 14th September 2026. 21. Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. 22. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 23. Copy of the order be sent to the MACT for compliance. 24. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 12, 2026/RK/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 17/08/2026 at 11:38:28