$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010167792026 + MAC.APP. 271/2026 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. versus BABLU SINGH & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Jatinder Kamra, Adv. for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 24.09.2026 MAC.APP. 271/2026 along with CM APPL. 59924/2026 1. Pursuant to the previous order, Mr. Jatinder Kamra, counsel for respondent no.1/claimant, has handed over the written statement filed by appellant/Insurance Company before the MACT, a copy of the MLC prepared by JS Hospital, discharge summary issued by Yatharth Hospital, as also a copy of the newspaper article wherein the said accident had been reported. 2. What Mr. Kamra, counsel for respondent no.1/claimant, is stating in terms of his application seeking part release of the compensation amount is that appellant/Insurance Company never raised the issue herein, either in its written statement or during the inquiry, which continued for about 7 years, the accident being of the year 2017. 3. A perusal of the written statement does not evidence any resistance of appellant/Insurance Company in terms of the accident having occurred, the 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 12:18:46 primary contention being of composite negligence of the two vehicles i.e. the tractor trolley and the bus [offending vehicle herein]. 4. The MLC also demonstrates that on the same date as the accident, i.e. on 22nd April 2017, Bablu Singh [respondent no.1/claimant herein] had reported to JS Hospital with injuries sustained in a road traffic accident at about 01:00 p.m. As far as the facts of the accident are concerned, the MACT also noted that the accident had occurred around 01:20 p.m. on the said date. 5. The discharge summary dated 13th May 2017 also records a history of trauma, caused due to RTA [road traffic accident] about one month back. 6. Copy of the newspaper report, published in Amar Ujala, provides a photograph of the accident and notes that the persons, who were riding in the bus, i.e. Yogesh Chauhan, Arjun Solanki, Bablu, Satish and Sanjay were taken to the JP Hospital. The bus was being driven by Satish. It was also reported that the contractor, Chandra Pal, who was operating the bus, had filed a report against driver of the bus. 7. The FIR itself is very bare in its narration; however, this cannot take away from the occurrence of the accident. The manner in which the accident occurred has been provided in evidence by way of affidavit of Bablu Singh [PW-1], who has furnished the details of occurrence of the accident, in that, at 01:20 p.m., driver of the bus, while driving at high speed, hit the tractor trolley bearing registration no. UP-13L-7835 from behind, causing it to topple and be dragged by the bus. The details regarding his treatment have been set out in paragraph 8 of the impugned award. 8. The defence taken by appellant/Insurance Company, as recorded by the MACT in paragraph 11 of the impugned award, is that Bablu Singh 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 12:18:46 [respondent no.1/claimant herein] was negligent, as he was employed on the bus as an ‘Assistant Traffic Controller’ but failed to guide the driver properly, resulting in collision with the tractor trolley. 9. The other defence taken by appellant/Insurance Company was with regard to the absence of a valid permit, on account of which, recovery rights have been granted to appellant/Insurance Company. 10. As regards the cross-examination of Bablu Singh [respondent no.1/claimant herein], the MACT has noted that the evidence furnished by him is unrebutted and uncontroverted and that the driver of the bus did not file any complaint alleging false implication. Neither was the Investigating Officer summoned by appellant/Insurance Company. 11. Furthermore, neither the driver nor the owner stepped into the witness box and, therefore, the evidence presented by Bablu Singh [respondent no.1/claimant herein] was considered for concluding negligence of driver of the bus/offending vehicle. Directions 12. In view of the above, the assertions regarding negligence and involvement of the bus/offending vehicle by appellant/Insurance Company shall not subsist. 13. As regards the quantum of compensation, there is no real assertion made by appellant/Insurance Company. 14. Accordingly, the quantum of compensation, as decided by the MACT, is upheld. 15. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 16. The rights of recovery granted to appellant/Insurance Company by the MACT shall be sustained. 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 12:18:46 17. Statutory amount, if any, be refunded to appellant/Insurance Company. 18. The Manager, State Bank of India, Saket Courts Branch, is directed to release the awarded amount, along with accrued interest thereon, in favour of Bablu Singh [respondent no.1/claimant herein], as per the directions passed by the MACT vide impugned award. 19. The next date, already fixed, stands cancelled. CM APPL. 59924/2026 1. Application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of in terms of the above directions. 2. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 24, 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 30/09/2026 at 12:18:46