MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 1/17

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on : 18

th

February 2026

Pronounced on : 10

th

March 2026

Uploaded on : 11

th

March 2026

+ MAC.APP. 127/2018

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

.....Appellant

Through: Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv.

versus

ANIL SRIVATAVA & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta and Mr. Lakshay

Mehta, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. Appellant/Insurance Company assails impugned award dated 14

th

December 2017 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts

(‘MACT/Tribunal’) which awarded a compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- with

9% per annum interest in favour of the respondent nos.1 & 2 (the father and

the mother of the deceased).

2. The Insurance Company states that as per the evidence, which was

placed before the MACT, the accident could not have happened due to the

negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

The incident

3. The accident occurred on 5

th

June 2010 at about 1:00 a.m. near Y-

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 2/17

point Crossing Hodal, when Akash (deceased) while travelling from

Keshavpuram, Delhi to Kokla Van in a Maruti Alto along with 3 other

friends, being driven by Rohit Arora (respondent no.3/driver), hit the

offending truck on the rear side when he tried to overtake the car ahead of

it at a high speed and swerved to the left side upon noticing a bus

approaching from the front towards his side

4. The truck driver fled away from the spot. Akash along with other

friends was taken to hospital, shifted to AIIMS and was declared brought

dead.

5. A complaint was sent to PS Hodal on 27

th

August 2010 and DD No.11

was registered but was not converted into an FIR, since the car was in a

faulty condition by medical inspection.

6. Father of the deceased, Sh. Anil Srivastava, published a notice in the

newspaper stating that if anybody had witnessed the sad accident. On that

basis it was alleged that PW1/Mahender Kumar approached the father and

stated that he was ready to give his statement.

Impugned Judgment

7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

I) Whether Akash Srivastava died on 05.06.2010 at about 01:00 p.m.,

at Y point crossing Hodal due to involvement of vehicle no. DL-9CK-

8275, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver?

II) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 3/17

amount and from whom?

8. Deceased’s income was proved to be Rs.10,000/- per month as

Assistant Marketing Executive under project infrastructure at Subhash

Place, Pitampura, Delhi and 50% from monthly salary was deduced

towards personal expenses. Multiplier of 20 was applied as the age of the

deceased was 20 years at the time of accident. Future prospect was awarded

at 50% as the deceased had a permanent job and earned a fixed salary and

was below 40 years of age. Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 16,20,000/- was

awarded towards loss of income. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded

towards funeral expenses and another Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate.

Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/- along with 9% interest

per annum was granted in favour of claimants.

Submissions on behalf of appellant

9. Ms. Prerna Mehta, counsel appearing on behalf of

appellant/Insurance Company, contended that no FIR was registered and,

therefore, the MACT merely assessed the evidence on record and held that

Akash Srivastava died due to involvement of the offending vehicle bearing

registration No. DL-9CK-8275/Maruti Alto, which was allegedly being

driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Rohit Arora.

10. It is submitted that there were two primary witnesses whose

testimonies were completely contradictory, regarding the manner of

accident.

11. PW1, Mahender Kumar, made a statement dated 14

th

April 2011

stating that he used to frequently visit Kokla Van, Shani Mandir and, on 4

th

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 4/17

June 2010, he was going on his motorcycle to take the blessings at the

temple started from Delhi at about 8:00 p.m. When he reached the Y-Point

Hodal, at about 12.50 a.m. on 5

th

June 2010, he parked his motorcycle at the

corner of the road to answer nature’s call. When he was returning back to

his motorcycle, he saw a Maruti Alto car bearing registration No. DL-9CK-

8275 coming from behind at a very high speed. At that time, one car was

going ahead of the said vehicle, and a truck was also ahead of that car. The

driver of the Maruti Alto overtook the car in front but, on noticing a bus

approaching from the opposite direction at a high speed, swerved towards

the left, lost control of the vehicle, and struck the rear side of the truck.

12. As a result, the front portion of Maruti Alto was damaged, and all the

four occupants sustained injuries. Mahender Kumar stated that he helped

them to arrange another vehicle and the driver identified himself as Rohit

Arora and stated that he would admit Akash Srivastava in the nearby

hospital and arrange First Aid for himself and other friends. He came to

know while reading the Hari Bhumi newspaper on 20

th

February 2011,

regarding the notice published by the father of the deceased Akash

Srivastava, which also carried a photograph of the deceased. He recognized

the deceased as the same person involved in the accident. Thereafter, he

contacted the father of the deceased as a good samaritan on 21

st

February

2011 and informed him about the details of the accident.

13. The father of the deceased met Mahender Kumar on 12

th

April 2011

and requested him to record his statement before the police. Accordingly,

this written statement dated 14

th

April 2011 was given.

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 5/17

14. Ms. Prerna Mehta, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company,

referred to the cross-examination of Mahender Kumar done by counsel for

respondent nos. 3 & 4 (driver and owner before the MACT). He stated that

he was standing adjacent to the road at a distance of about 5 to 10 steps, and

he saw the car from a distance of 15 to 20 steps. He noted the number of the

car when it stopped due to the accident. He further stated that the highway

had two carriageways and that the alleged offending car driven by Rohit

Arora first ran over the divider and was in the process of overtaking the car

going in front but dashed into the truck going ahead of the car. According

to him, the divider was only about half inches in height, and there was

another bus coming from the other carriageway. He stated that this process

took hardly two minutes and that both the offending car and the car ahead

were travelling at approximately 80 km/hr. He said the offending car

stopped at a distance of 25 to 30 meters away from him.

15. He further stated he did not make a PCR call as he did not have a

mobile but stayed on the spot of the incident for about 10 minutes and went

to the local police along with the father of the deceased to lodge a complaint.

16. Further, he stated that the Hari Bhumi newspaper was read by his

father and he had come to depose at the instance of the petitioner. He denied

the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the stepney tyre of the truck

falling off and hitting the front glass of the offending car, as alleged by Rohit

Arora.

17. Contrary to the deposition of PW1, Rohit Arora deposed that while

he was driving the car towards the Shani Temple, the stepney of a

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 6/17

truck/trawler travelling ahead became detached and struck the bonnet and

front glass of his car, resulting in injuries to the deceased, who was seated

beside him, and to the other occupants. According to him, there was no

rashness or negligence on his part. He further stated that, in these

circumstances, no FIR was registered.

18. Ms. Prerna Mehta stated that the testimony of PW1 was highly

inconsistent, particularly in the cross-examination, where he seemed to have

been deliberately planted by the father of the deceased. She contended that,

in light of these contradictions and as per the testimony of Rohit Arora,

driver of the offending vehicle, the issue of negligence ought to have been

decided differently by the MACT.

Submissions on behalf of claimants

19. Ms. Aruna Mehta, counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants,

contended that Rohit Arora had admitted the occurrence of the accident in

the DD entry dated 7

th

June 2010. She submitted that, even as per the

testimony of Rohit Arora, he was driving his vehicle in close proximity to

the truck ahead, and if stepney fell and struck his vehicle, it itself reflected

lack of due care and caution on his part.

20. She contended that PW1 had clearly proved that the negligence was

on the part of Rohit Arora, who, in an attempt to overtake the car in front,

ran over the divider and, on noticing an oncoming bus, swerved and collided

against the truck in front.

21. She stated that registration of an FIR is not necessary for establishing

negligence and considering that DD entry had been registered, it was

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 7/17

enough to prove that an accident had taken place.

22. In support of her submissions, she relied upon the following

judgments:

(i) Nishan Singh & Ors. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2018 (6)

SCC 765, in particular paragraph 12, on the fact that since the

collision was from behind, it was the duty of the vehicle which is

behind to follow Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road

Regulations, 1989. The relevant para is extracted as under:

“The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been

affirmed by the High Court, by observing that the

evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the

Maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent

manner, which was the cause for accident of this

nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers

in the Maruti car. The Maruti car was driven by none

other than PW 2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he

has admitted that the subject truck was running

ahead of the Maruti car for quite some time about

one kilometre and at the time of accident, the

distance between the truck and Maruti car was only

10-15 ft. He has also admitted that the law mandates

maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles

running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute

that the road on which the two vehicles were moving

was only about 14 ft wide. It is unfathomable that on

such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at

a high speed as alleged. In any case, the Maruti car

which was following the truck was expected to

maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation

23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which

reads thus:

“23. Distance from vehicles in front.—The driver of

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 8/17

a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall

keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle

to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should

suddenly slow down or stop.”

The expression “sufficient distance” has not been

defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb

rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance

of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to

avert collision and to allow the following driver time

to respond. The distance of 10-15 ft between the truck

and Maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for

which the driver of the Maruti car must take the

blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on

the issue under consideration ought to be against the

claimants.”

(emphasis added)

(ii) DTC v. Harbans Kaur 1982 SCC OnLine Del 268 and Delhi

Transport Corporation v. Kumari Lalita AIR 1982 Del 558,

which she relied upon to submit that it is a matter of common

knowledge that public men are generally reluctant to involve

themselves in police investigations; therefore, it was not unnatural

that Mahender Kumar did not report to the police at that stage but

later, on the initiative taken by the father of the deceased, decided

to help.

(iii) National Insurance Company Ltd. v Kapil Bansal

2016:DHC:2139, which she relied on to state that this was also a

case where diary entry was made and the same did not result in an

FIR.

(iv) Similar was the case in Parameswari v Amir Chand (2011) 11

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 9/17

SCC 635, New India Assurance Company Ltd. v Kaushalya Devi

2016 ACJ 70 ALL and Brestu Ram v. Anant Ram 1990 ACJ 333

HP.

23. Counsel for claimants states that the police did not file any records

indicating a detached stepney at the spot of accident.

Rejoinder submissions on behalf of appellant

24. In the rejoinder, Ms. Prerna Mehta, counsel for appellant/Insurance

Company relied upon Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007)

5 SCC 428 in paragraphs 10-11, 24-25 and 27-29, on the issue that the

Tribunal must approach a claim for compensation on proof of negligence

and should not jettison all principles of law relating to a claim for

compensation which is still based on tortious liability.

25. She further relied upon Surender Kumar Arora & Anr. V Dr. Manoj

Bisla & Ors. 2010:DHC:3095 in paragraphs 4-10.

Analysis

26. The MACT, while determining the issue of negligence, relied on the

testimony of PW2, father of the deceased and that of PW1, Mahender

Kumar.

27. PW1, Mahender Kumar, stated that on 4

th

June 2010, he was going

towards Shani temple and had started from there at about 8:00 p.m. When

he reached Y-point, Hodal at about 12:50 a.m., post-midnight, he went to

relieve himself at the corner of the road. While returning to his motorcycle,

he saw a Maruti Alto car coming from behind at a very high speed. At the

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 10/17

same time, one car was ahead of the offending vehicle, and a truck was also

ahead of that car. The driver of the Maruti Alto overtook the said car;

however, upon noticing a bus approaching from the opposite direction, he

swerved his vehicle, lost control, and struck the right side of the truck. The

truck driver fled from the spot. The Maruti Alto was severely damaged, and

all four occupants sustained injuries.

28. PW1 deposed that he helped to arrange another vehicle, and the

driver told his name as Rohit Arora. He further deposed that Rohit Arora

told him that he would get Akash Srivastava admitted to a nearby hospital

and would also seek First Aid for himself and the other occupants. PW1

stated that he proceeded to Shani Mandir on the bona fide belief that injured

persons would become okay with timely medical aid.

29. On 20

th

February 2011, while reading the newspaper Hari Bhumi, he

came across a notice regarding the said accident, where the phone number

of the father of the deceased had been mentioned. Since he had witnessed

the accident, he informed the father of the deceased and subsequently gave

his statement at the concerned police station.

30. In the cross-examination, PW1 stood by his testimony and, in fact,

mentioned that the divider was only half an inch high and the Alto car had

first run over the divider while attempting to overtake the car ahead and then

collided with the truck. He stated that the incident happened hardly 2

minutes and the vehicles were at approximately 80 km per hour speed. He

further stated that the offending car stopped at a distance of about 25-30

metres from him and was approximately 10-15 feet behind the truck at the

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 11/17

time of impact. He remained at the spot for about ten minutes. He denied

the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the stepney tyre of the truck

in front falling off and hitting the glass, as alleged by Rohit Arora.

31. In contrast, the testimony of Rohit Arora, RW1, will need to be

considered. He stated that when they were driving in the Alto, suddenly the

stepney of the trawler-truck, which was ahead of the offending vehicle,

became detached, struck the bonnet and front windshield of the car, and

resulted in injuries to the deceased.

32. In his cross examination, RW1 admitted that he does not have any

document/proof to corroborate the fact that he had sustained injuries in the

above accident. The Court has perused the photographs of the damaged car

exhibited as Ex.PW2/1. A few of them are reproduced as under:

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 12/17

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 13/17

33. By no means can it be inferred that such damage would have been

caused by the stepney of a truck falling on the car, particularly considering

the extent of damage, the massive bending of the steel of the car as well as

the impact seems to be on the left corner, which is consistent with the

testimony of PW1.

34. A complaint had been filed, which was registered on 7

th

June 2010,

at the behest of Anil Kumar Srivastava, father of the deceased, and had been

registered as DD No.122/CC.

35. He further filed a complaint on 27

th

August 2010 before the SHO,

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 14/17

Police Station Hodal, District Palwal, Haryana, stating that no FIR had been

lodged in the case.

36. The testimony of Rohit Arora, therefore, does not seem credible from

any stretch of evaluation. Moreover, there is no evidence on record from the

driver of the offending vehicle, Rohit Arora, to show that there was any

sudden braking on the part of the truck in front. Thus, the role of the truck

ahead is clearly excluded. In any event, relying upon the decision in Nishan

Singh (supra) it can be presumed that there is a legal presumption under

Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations that the driver of a motor

vehicle moving behind another vehicle must keep a sufficient distance so as

to avoid collision if the vehicle in front suddenly slows down or stops. The

attempt by Rohit Arora to overtake the vehicle ahead at such a high speed,

particularly in the presence of possible oncoming traffic and a thin divider

of half an inch, which, as per PW1, he attempted to breach, was a careless

and negligent act which clearly resulted in the accident.

37. The fact that there is no FIR registered, the reliance of the Ms. Aruna

Mehta, counsel for respondent, on Kapil Bansal (supra), Parmeshwari Devi

(supra), Kaushalya Devi (supra) and Brestu Ram (supra) may be referred

to.

38. In Parmeshwari Devi (supra), the Supreme Court set aside the High

Court's view that since nobody had come from the police station to prove

the complaint, which had been registered, the issue of negligence could not

be proved. The Supreme Court stated “the official procedure in matters of

proceeding with the complaint is not within the control of appellant, who is

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 15/17

an ordinary village woman”… “the general apathy of the administration in

dealing with complaints lodged by ordinary citizens is far too well known

to be looked by the High Court”. In this regard, the Supreme Court observed

that perception of the High Court in disbelieving the complaint betrayed a

lack of sensitized approach to the plight of a victim in a motor accident

claim.

39. In Harbans Kaur (supra), statement of the eyewitness had not been

recorded by the police, and there was no explanation given by the witness

as to how the witness was contacted later to depose about the accident. It

was held that it is common knowledge that public men do not want to

involve themselves in any investigation, and appellant/insurance company

could have clarified from the eyewitness in the cross-examination, whether

he was present in the site or how did he appear, but no attempt was made.

40. In Kapil Bansal (supra), the local police had recorded a diary entry

and there was no FIR. However, this Court while assessing the issue of

negligence, rejected the plea that negligence had not been proved,

considering that one of the witnesses had confirmed the necessary facts

concerning the sequence of events leading to the accident.

41. In Kaushalya Devi (supra), Division Bench of the High Court of

Allahabad, noting that no FIR had been lodged, held that the absence of an

FIR is not material if the involvement of the vehicle is established by

evidence.

42. In Brestu Ram (supra), the decision of a Single Judge of the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, dealt with an issue where an accident

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 16/17

was not reported at the police station, which was situated at some distance

from the place of accident, since there were serious injuries sustained.

However, there was enough evidence to prove the factum of the accident.

After analyzing the relevant law in this regard, the Court concluded that

there was no evidence to the contrary and there were substantial reasons for

late filing of the claim petition.

43. The reliance placed by the counsel for the appellant on the decision

in Meena Variyal (supra) does not assist the appellant for the reason that

the case before us is not a case where the Tribunal ignored basic principles

of law while determining the claim for compensation. The relevant

paragraphs of Meena Variyal (supra) relied upon by appellant largely deal

with the procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal in determining

compensation on observation of the Supreme Court that claimants are

obliged to prove the negligence of the driver and that the principles of

general law in this regard have not been jettisoned by the Motor Vehicles

Act. There can be no cavil on this issue, it is a well settled principle.

44. However, this is not a case where the claimant has failed to prove the

factum of the accident, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the

negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In fact, Rohit Arora, RW1,

admitted the occurrence of the accident. However, the explanation given by

him for the injuries caused, namely that the stepney of the truck ahead fell

on the car, as noted above, lacks any credibility and cannot be accepted.

45. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are untenable and the appeal is

dismissed.

MAC.APP. 127/2018 Page 17/17

46. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

47. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL

(JUDGE)

MARCH 10, 2026/mk/bp