$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010024632026 + MAC.APP. 82/2026 RAJ KUMAR SAH @ RAJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellant Through: Mr. F.K. Jha, Mr. Gaurav Jha and Ms. Shalini Jha, Advs. versus RAM JEEVAN LATH & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 02.09.2026 1. This appeal has been filed seeking setting aside the judgment dated 23rd December 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘MACT’), in MACT No.619/2017, whereby the claim filed by the Legal Representatives of the deceased, Sh. Raja Kumar, was dismissed. 2. The accident occurred on 26th July 2017 at about 3:30 pm, when the deceased was driving a motorcycle and was hit from behind by a bus bearing no. BR30P-5567. He was taken to hospital but died during treatment. FIR No.196/2017 was registered and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 279/337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Ms. Anju Kumari, wife of deceased/PW-1, had deposed and has filed affidavit Ex.PW1/1, placing all the necessary documents on record. 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:45 4. Mr. F.K. Jha, counsel for appellant, argues that the conclusion of the Tribunal is based on untenable issues, particularly the observation in paragraph 28 of the impugned award relating to proxy litigation on behalf of advocates of claimant, as wife of deceased/PW-1 was not able to confirm the contents of her affidavit. Further, the observation in paragraph 29 relating to the alleged intoxication of deceased, despite there being no evidence to that effect and there being no such evidence on behalf of eye-witnesses. 5. Mr. Jha further contends that, since a chargesheet had been filed alleging negligence on the part of the accused driver, the question of contributory negligence would not arise. 6. Mr. A.K. Soni, counsel for the Insurance Company, contends that the chargesheet may not be relevant for the reason that the MACT has recorded that the accused was acquitted by the Criminal Courts. However, it is noted that the acquittal order is not on record and neither is it available with the counsel of the parties. 7. Mr. A.K. Soni, counsel for Insurance Company, further states that aside from aforesaid material, no evidence has been filed of the alleged eyewitnesses, namely, Rohan Mishra and Eklavya, who were travelling on the motorcycle with the deceased. 8. The information elicited from the fard byan of Rohan Mishra, which was given as part of the criminal proceedings where he stated that he had given a statement to the SHO of PS Sursand on 26th July 2017 that they were travelling on their motorcycle being driven by the deceased Raja Kumar and himself and Eklavya from Sitamarhi to Sursand. At around 03:30 p.m. on Sitamarhi Sursand main paved road NH 104 when they reached near the petrol pump, a bus coming from behind at a high speed hit the motorcycle due to 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:45 which all three of them got injured and the motorcycle got stuck under the bus, due to that they received grievous injuries on both the legs and he identified the bus as ‘Amrapali’ bearing registration no. BR-30P-5567. He further stated that he was brought by the locals to Sitamarhi where the treatment was going on. 9. Counsel for appellant in addition relies on the photograph forming part of the chargesheet, which shows the motorcycle having been crushed under the front of the truck. The said photograph is extracted below for reference: 10. Mr. Jha, counsel for appellant, has also relied upon the decision of this Court in National Insurance co ltd v Shehnaj Begum & Ors. 2026:DHC:3169, stating that doctrine of res ipsa loquitur squarely applies. The material placed on record, including the FIR, chargesheet, and 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:45 photographs clearly establishes that the offending vehicle had struck motorcycle. 11. On being queried as to why these eyewitnesses were not examined before the Tribunal, counsel for appellant submits that they were residing in Sitamarhi and, at the relevant point of time, it had become practically difficult to get them to give their evidence. 12. In order to address the contention of Mr. Soni that no evidence was led by the eyewitnesses, and having regard to the facts and circumstances, including the photograph and the chargesheet which was initially filed, even though it may have resulted in acquittal (the order of which is not available), the Court is of the view that an opportunity ought to be granted to claimants to lead further evidence on this aspect. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the MACT for claimants to lead further evidence in this regard. 13. Mr. F.K. Jha, counsel for appellant, states that he shall seek to summon the aforesaid eyewitnesses through the MACT and seeks liberty in this regard. 14. The prayer is accordingly allowed. 15. The MACT may also requisition the order of acquittal in order to examine the grounds on which the accused driver of the alleged offending vehicle was acquitted. 16. Insurance Company will be at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses and to address their arguments in this regard. 17. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The observations made herein are confined to the consideration of the present appeal. 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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:45 18. The matter is listed before the MACT on 21st September 2026 for further directions. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. 20. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 21. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/MK/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 09/09/2026 at 11:46:45