$~38 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010453552026 + CM(M) 2103/2026, CM APPL. 65316/2026 & CM APPL. 65317/2026. M/S ACKO GENERAL INSURENCE CO. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamaldeep, Ms. Jasmin, Advocates. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dilawar Singh, Advocate for Respondent nos.2-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 25.09.2026 1. This petition has been filed for setting aside impugned orders dated 02nd July 2026 and 06th August 2026 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘MACT/Tribunal’) in MAC Petition No.570/2022. 2. Mr. Kamaldeep, counsel for petitioner/Insurance Company, contends that the claim petition was filed in respect of an accident which occurred on 08th July 2021, which led to the registration of FIR No.321/2021 at P.S. Kalyanpuri, East District, Delhi under Sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He contends that the FIR and Medico-Legal Case (‘MLC’) record that the incident involved an “unknown heavy vehicle/truck” 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26 with no mention of the insured vehicle, which was alleged to be a small Alto car bearing registration no. DL-5CK-3821 (hereinafter, ‘alleged offending vehicle’). A detailed accident report (‘DAR’) was filed along with the chargesheet, which Mr. Kamaldeep states was never filed before the Magistrate. 3. In this context, Mr. Kamaldeep, points out to the Scheme for Motor Accidents Claims formulated by this Court, which requires the investigation to be completed within 60 days of the accident and report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to be filed with the DAR. 4. In order to understand the factual matrix, it is essential to understand the chronological events of the matter. 5. The accident in question occurred on 8th July 2021, when Satish Nagar (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) was hit by the alleged offending vehicle near National Highway-24. FIR was registered on 9th July 2021 and thereafter, the DAR was filed by Investigating Officer (‘IO’) on 13th September 2022. Claim petition was filed in 2022. 6. A representation was addressed by petitioner/Insurance Company to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East, with reference to FIR No. 21/2021 on 10th July 2024 seeking re-investigation of the involvement of insured offending vehicle. 7. Meanwhile, in the proceedings before the MACT, examination of SI Krishan Kumar (R3W1) was conducted on 8th April 2026, whereby, the following questions were posed to him: “Tribunal Question: Can you tell the date on which chargesheet was filed before the Court of Ld. Magistrate concerned ? _ 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26 Ans: The chargesheet has not been filed till date. Tribunal Question: Any steps in the investigation taken by you to ensure/confirm whether the driver of the offending vehicle present at the spot at the time of the accident? Ans: I did not take any steps like search for the CDRs or the CCTV Footage or TIP etc. as I was informed by public witness Harish Pal about the incident and presence of driver Khurshid Alam at the time of the accident.” (emphasis added) 8. Thereafter, CM (M) 1545/2026 was preferred by petitioner/Insurance Company before this Court, filed on 26th May 2026, inter alia, seeking quashing/setting aside of the proceedings in MACT No. 570/2022 on grounds of it being fundamentally defective and the investigation being incomplete. Petitioner/Insurance Company also sought directions to the IO to place on record the present status of investigation, along with reasons for non-filing of the report. 9. The said petition was withdrawn by petitioner/Insurance Company and accordingly dismissed vide order dated 21st July 2026. 10. An application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, ‘first application’) was preferred by petitioner/Insurance Company for issuing formal summons to DCP (East), New Delhi and SHO, P.S. Kalyan Puri to appear before MACT with the complete record and also to designate the said officials as court witnesses, in order to grant permission to petitioner/Insurance Company to cross-examine them. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26 11. Vide order dated 2nd July 2026, which is impugned herein, the MACT in a detailed order noted that the evidence sought in the application does not advance the adjudication of issues involved. It was also noted that the application is an attempt to widen the scope of proceedings beyond the statutory jurisdiction of MACT and has resulted in avoidable delays in the progress of claim petition. Dismissing the application of Insurance Company with costs of Rs. 15,000/-, the MACT noted as under: “The respondent Insurance Company is at liberty to establish such statutory defences as may be available to it by leading admissible evidence in accordance with law. However, the proposed evidence sought through the present application neither advances the adjudication of the issues involved in the present claim petition nor is it essential for a just decision of the case. The application is, therefore, wholly misconceived and devoid of any merits. This Tribunal also finds that the application has been filed by invoking provisions which have no application to the relief sought and is in attempt to widen the scope of the present proceedings beyond the statutory jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The application has unnecessarily consumed valuable judicial time and has resulted in avoidable delay in the progress of the claim petition, defeating the very object of expeditious disposal of Motor Accident Claims. It is further noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Hon'ble High Courts have repeatedly emphasized that frivolous and meritless applications which unnecessarily prolonged judicial proceedings deserves to be discouraged by imposition of realistic cost. The present application, in opinion of this Tribunal, is one of such application.” (emphasis added) 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26 12. Yet another application (hereinafter, ‘second application’) was preferred by petitioner/Insurance Company seeking directions from the MACT to direct the IO to place on record the status of investigation, along with directions to IO to state on affidavit whether any report under Section 173 of CrPC had been filed before the criminal court and in case such report has not been filed, direct IO to disclose reasons for non-filing. 13. Vide order dated 6th August 2026, which is also impugned herein, MACT had noted the Insurance Company’s submission that costs will be paid within a week. Dismissing the said application, the MACT noted that R3W1 has been examined in detail. The claim has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, therefore, non-filing or delay in filing of investigation records does not extinguish the victim’s right to claim compensation. Respondents therein were given liberty to file written submissions and the matter was listed for final arguments on 22nd September 2026. 14. Thereafter, this present petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders as noted above. 15. Mr. Kamaldeep, counsel for petitioner/Insurance Company, contends that they were not allowed to cross-examine R3W1. Moreover, he stated that, at the very least, Insurance Company is entitled to invoke its rights to examine the I.O. and persuade the MACT to exercise its powers in order to summon the record of criminal proceedings. 16. Court is not inclined to accept this plea for the following reasons: (i) Firstly, despite the claim petition having been filed in 2022, a representation was only addressed in 2024, albeit to which no response was received. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26 (ii) Secondly, the MACT had recorded R3W1’s testimony on 8th April 2026 and that aspect has been glossed over in petitioner’s plea. (iii) Thirdly, the previous petition i.e. CM(M) 1545/2026 was filed on 26th May 2026, despite the testimony of R3W1 having been recorded. The said petition was seeking similar reliefs for directing the IO to present records in respect of criminal proceedings and was dismissed as withdrawn; (iv) Fourthly¸ yet another application (first application) was filed for issuance of summons to DCP, East to get complete records. (v) Fifthly, that despite costs having been imposed by MACT in the dismissal of first application, second application was thereafter preferred which was also dismissed. Moving successive applications only to seek directions in respect of criminal proceedings has been correctly dismissed by MACT. (vi) Sixthly¸ petitioner’s/Insurance Company’s insistence to somehow have reinvestigation or to persuade the investigating authority to complete investigation is a relief which cannot be granted by the MACT. After it came on record that no charge-sheet had been filed before the Criminal Court, the matter ends there, as regards the MACT. MACT is not the competent court to conduct an inquiry into why the IO did not file the chargesheet before the Magistrate. That is a matter for the Criminal Court to process, if so approached. Petitioner’s right to cross-examine would have served no purpose once the Tribunal asked the relevant question to the IO to which a categorical response was recorded. Anything beyond that was not necessary or legally appropriate. 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26 (vii) Lastly, it is up to petitioner/Insurance Company to address their final arguments and take all the pleas in accordance with law. It is for the MACT to examine the matter basis evidence on record, applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, and taking into account any attendant facts and circumstances that may be necessary for purposes of the inquiry. 17. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the decision of Supreme Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171, where the Supreme Court stated that the standard of proof adopted by the MACT is one of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Fault should not be found on the non-examination of best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial and instead reliance should be placed upon the material placed on record by the parties in order to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is true or not. Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under: “21. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyse the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true.” (emphasis added) 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26 18. Therefore, the MACT’s finding on imposition of costs of Rs. 15,000/- vide impugned order dated 2nd July 2026 is sustained. 19. Accordingly, this petition itself is also not merited and is, therefore, dismissed. 20. Pending applications are rendered infructuous. 21. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026/ak/sp 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 30/09/2026 at 11:08:26