$~46, 47 & 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010469642026 + MAC.APP. 637/2026 & CM APPL. 67612/2026 CM APPL. 67613/2026 CM APPL. 67614/2026 CM APPL. 67615/2026 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. R K Tripathi, Adv. versus RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None 47 # CNR No. DLHC010469652026 + MAC.APP. 638/2026&CM APPL. 67616/2026 CM APPL. 67617/2026 CM APPL. 67618/2026 CM APPL. 67619/2026 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. R K Tripathi, Adv. versus VINOD & ORS. .....Respondent Through: None 1 + MAC.APP. 627/2026 & CM APPL. 65829/2026 CM APPL. 65830/2026 CM APPL. 65831/2026 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. R K Tripathi, Adv. versus 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:42 RAJVEER SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. The afore-captioned three appeals have been filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 13th April 2026 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South East District, Saket Courts [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in MACT No.585/2021, MACT No.584/2021 and MACT No.583/2021 in relation to an accident which occurred on 16th August 2020. 2. In the said accident, the three injured, who were riding on a motorcycle, were hit by a truck bearing registration No. PB 07 AF 6010 (‘offending vehicle’), which was being driven by Jagtar Singh, owned by Mohan Singh, and insured with the appellant insurance company. 3. Information regarding the accident was received on 16th August 2020 through a PCR call, which was recorded as DD No. 64A. Subsequently, after taking statements of the injured persons, FIR No. 277/2020 was registered under Sections 279 and 337/338 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kalindi Kunj, South-East Delhi, which culminated in a charge-sheet thereafter, and a site plan was also prepared. 4. Mr. R. K. Tripathi, counsel for the insurance company, raises a common ground in all three appeals of contributory negligence. He states that since the claimants were triple-riding on the motorcycle, they ought to have been fastened with some degree of contributory negligence. 5. A perusal of the impugned award shows that the MACT considered the said plea and observed that there was nothing on record to establish that 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:42 accident occurred due to any negligence on the part of the victims, or that the motorcycle had become unstable or was being driven in an unsafe manner on account of triple-riding. The consistent case of the claimants was that the offending truck hit the motorcycle while attempting to overtake it, which was not a situation within the control of the victims. Since there was no cogent evidence linking the act of triple-riding to the cause of the accident, the Tribunal held that a mere violation of traffic rules could not, by itself, lead to an inference of contributory negligence. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct and cannot be differed with. This Court has also taken a view on the issue of triple riding in Hitesh Singh v. Ravi 2026:DHC:7881. The relevant paragraphs are as under: “11. This Court does not resonate with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in this regard, in view of the various other judgments on the subject. However, that is not the issue before this Court. The issue arising in the present case, on the basis of the submission of Mr. Khattar, is materially different. Mr. Khattar appears to contend that the scooter being driven by an unlicensed driver, ought to be treated as being solely negligent and that the compensation ought consequently to be recovered from the owner of the scooter, who was negligent in handing over the vehicle to his younger brother. 12. Firstly, this plea is untenable for the reason that the owner of the scooter would be liable only if it is established that the driver of the scooter was negligent and that such negligence contributed to the accident. Secondly, no such case was established by the driver or owner of the offending vehicle before the MACT, as no evidence was led by them. 13. In any event, even if it were found that the driver of the scooter was driving without a valid driving licence, that fact by itself would not lead to a finding 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:42 contributory negligence unless the same is established by cogent evidence. In this regard, Mr. Pruthi places reliance upon Saraswati Palariya v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3988, wherein the Supreme Court held that the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the High Court merely on the ground that the deceased was driving the vehicle without a driving licence was unsustainable. Driving without a driving licence may expose a person to other liabilities, but no inference of contributory negligence can be drawn on that basis alone. This principle has also been followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Saleem Ahmed v. Jaipal, 2024:DHC:9760. The Court, therefore, has to examine whether negligence on the part of the offending vehicle was established from the facts and circumstances of the present case. *** 18. This Court has considered the Supreme Court in Mohd. Siddique v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 3 SCC 57 where it was held that triple riding a motorcycle, does not by itself made a person guilty of contributory negligence but only guilty of violation of law..... 19. For contributory negligence to be established, the same must first be specifically alleged and thereafter proved. In the present case, however, neither the driver nor the owner took any such position before the MACT, nor did they lead any evidence whatsoever in support thereof. 20. On the issue of contributory negligence arising from the victim not possessing a valid driving licence, this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd v Smt. Kusum and Ors. 2026:DHC:6915 has considered the said issue…. 21. Moreover, in the same judgment, the Court had culled out the principles as regards contributory negligence which are also extracted below for ease of reference: “15. The following principles as regards 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:42 contributory negligence can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments: I. Contributory negligence requires proof of negligence on the part of the victim which has materially contributed to the accident or the resulting injury. II. The determination of contributory negligence is essentially dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant test is whether, by exercising reasonable care, the victim could have avoided the consequences of the negligence which caused the accident. III. A mere violation of law by the victim does not, by itself, constitute contributory negligence. There must be a causal connection between such violation and either the occurrence of the accident or the impact/injury suffered by the victim. IV. The burden of establishing contributory negligence lies upon the party alleging it. Such negligence must be established by cogent material demonstrating that an act or omission attributable to the claimant/victim materially contributed to the accident or the injury suffered. V. The mere absence, invalidity, non-production of a driving licence, or possession of only a learner’s licence, by itself, do not constitute contributory negligence. Such violation may entail statutory consequences, but a finding of contributory negligence can be made only where it is established by cogent evidence that such violation has a causal connection with the occurrence of the accident or the injuries suffered by the victim. VI. Where negligence is attributable to both parties, the Court may apportion the loss between them in such proportion as is just and equitable. However, such apportionment necessarily presupposes a finding 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:42 contributory negligence on the part of the claimant; in its absence, no deduction from compensation is warranted.” (emphasis supplied) 22. In view of the position of law as noted above, the plea of the Insurance Company on the issue of contributory negligence is unsustainable.” (emphasis added) 7. Triple-riding, by itself, does not constitute contributory negligence. Accordingly, this plea of the insurance company cannot be accepted. In any event, as regards the injured Vinod, the MACT has deducted 10% from the compensation amount for not wearing helmet while driving. 8. Another issue raised by Mr. Tripathi relates to the quantum of compensation awarded to the injured-Vinod. Mr. Tripathi submits that the MACT erred in assessing the claimant’s notional income on the basis of the minimum wages payable to a skilled worker. 9. This issue has been dealt with in paragraph no.23(a) of the impugned award in MACT No.584/2021, wherein the MACT noted that PW1/Vinod deposed that he was working as a TSR driver and had placed on record his valid driving licence as Ex. PW1/6, noting that he was engaged in a skilled vocation. Further, his Aadhaar Card reflected his residence as Sarita Vihar, South Delhi. Therefore, the presumption taken by the MACT that he was earning his livelihood as a driver was based on cogent evidence and therefore the notional wages assessment of a skilled worker cannot be faulted. Consequently, the assessment of his income on the basis of the minimum wages of a skilled worker cannot be faulted. This plea of the insurance company is accordingly rejected. 10. In view of above discussion, all these appeals stand dismissed. 11. The impugned award of the MACT shall be complied with by 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:42 insurance company. 12. Statutory deposit, if so deposited, be refunded with accrued interest. 13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/sm/bp 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 06/10/2026 at 11:50:42