$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010300852019 + MAC.APP. 685/2019&CM APPL. 58134/2024 GEETA & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Ravi Chawla, Advocate with Mr. Ritwik Chawla, Advocates. versus BHUPENDER KUMAR YADAV & ORS (NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD) .....Respondent Through: Ms. Sikha Sagar, Advocate for R-1- 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. Mr. Ravi Chawla, counsel for appellant, argues that the claim had been dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘MACT/Tribunal’] on the ground that the testimony of PW-2, the alleged eyewitness, who was Head Constable and had seen the accident, as well as identified the offending vehicle, was disbelieved by the MACT, on the ground that he was not cited as a witness in the charge sheet which had been filed by the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) along with the Detailed Accident Report (‘DAR’). 2. Mr. Chawla submits that two charge sheets had been filed, a certified copy of one of which has been obtained from the Trial Court. The charge 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 12:18:02 sheet filed earlier records the name of Head Constable Anil Kumar as an eyewitness. He, therefore, contends that any negligence or omission on the part of the IO ought not to operate to the disadvantage of the claimant. 3. He further draws the attention of the Court to the DAR, wherein, at serial no. 33, the registration number of the vehicle is recorded as HR-38M- 3792, a truck, with the digit ‘7’ appearing to have been overwritten on ‘8’. However, at serial no. 35, the registration number is recorded as HR-38M- 3892, also described as a truck. 4. He, therefore, submits that the MACT ought to have at least examined the record to ascertain which of the charge sheets had in fact been filed before the Criminal Court and assess the plea of the claimants. 5. Ms. Sikha Sagar, counsel for respondent no. 1-2, driver/owner, states that the driver and owner have been acquitted in the criminal proceedings. 6. Ms. Sruthi Jain, counsel appearing for Insurance Company, states that there was no infirmity with the MACT's award. 7. The Court has perused the Trial Court Record (‘TCR’), which shows that only two witnesses were examined, namely, PW-1, Geeta, wife of the deceased, and PW-2, Anil Kumar. Anil Kumar categorically deposed regarding the circumstances of the accident and also identified the offending vehicle. He, however, stated that his statement had not been recorded. 8. In order to re-assess the testimony of PW-2, ASI Anil Kumar, and to ascertain which of the two charge sheets had in fact been filed before the Criminal Court, the matter is remanded back to the MACT to conduct a further enquiry into this aspect by summoning the IO and the relevant records if so necessary. 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 12:18:02 9. Accordingly, the matter be listed before the MACT on 13th October 2026. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any determinative opinion of the matter and counsel for the parties will be at liberty to cross- examine the IO. 11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous. 12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 23, 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 30/09/2026 at 12:18:02