Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd v. Shanti Devi & ORS

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.APP. 16/2016 IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....Appellant Through:

Ms. Suman Bagga and Ms. Mouli Sharma, Advocates.

versus SHANTI DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate for R-1 and 2.

Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 18.02.2026 1.

This appeal has been filed assailing impugned award dated 12th December 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi ["Tribunal"] in MACP No. 166/2012. 2.

Ms.

Suman Bagga, counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company, points out that the claim petition was initially filed by Legal Representatives [LRs] of deceased Deepak Tomar under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('MV Act') but was later converted to a Section 163A petition. The Tribunal, therefore adjudicated the petition under Section 163A and granted compensation in favour of claimants [respondent no.1-2 herein]. 3.

The award records the stand of the claimants that Deepak Tomar was a pillion rider on motorcycle no. 'DL-9SAG-8596', which was being driven rashly and negligently driven by Rahul Singh [respondent no.3 herein]. It The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

was case of claimants/respondents no.1-2 that, due to rash and negligent driving of Rahul/respondent no.3, the motorcycle collided against a divider, causing fatal injuries to Deepak Tomar, who later died. In that event, being a third-party, the insurance would have kicked in, and, therefore, compensation was awarded and appellant/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the same.

4.

Ms. Suman Bagga, Counsel for appellant, states that the Detailed Accident Report ('DAR') clearly records that Deepak Tomar was the driver and was driving without a valid driving licence. However, the DAR was not considered by the Tribunal while assessing negligence. 5.

A perusal of impugned award dated 12th October 2015 passed by the Tribunal, confirms the same. It is, therefore, pleaded by Ms. Suman Bagga, Counsel for appellant, that the matter be remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration of this aspect of negligence, namely whether Deepak Tomar was driving the motorcycle and Rahul was the pillion rider, or vice versa. 6.

Mr. S.N. Parashar, Counsel appearing for respondent no.3/Rahul, states that they have also filed a claim petition, being MACP No.64/15/2015/492/16, before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the injuries sustained. He further states that the claim petition has been filed on the basis that Rahul was the pillion rider while Deepak Tomar was driving the motorcycle.

7.

It is informed that the said claim petition is listed before the Tribunal on 25th February 2025.

8.

Considering that there are contrasting claims by Rahul/ respondent no. 3 on one hand and LRs of deceased Deepak Tomar on the other, as to who was driving the vehicle, and that there is a DAR report which must be taken into account, this Court deems it fit to remand the matter back to the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Tribunal to reconsider the evidence, documents on record, and the DAR, particularly, with respect to issue of negligence. 9.

The Registry of this Court shall tag along this appeal with claim petition no. being MACP No.64/15/2015/492/16 and list the matter before the Tribunal on 16th March 2026.

10.

As part of fresh enquiry, inter alia, evidence of Rahul shall be recorded, and the right of cross examination shall subsist in favour of claimants/LRs of deceased Deepak Tomar as well as the Insurance appellant/Company.

11.

Clearly, evidence in both matters will have an impact on the final decision.

12.

The Tribunal shall return its finding and awards in these matters after requisitioning the relevant evidence for the purposes of adjudication and granting opportunity to the parties.

13.

It is informed by Ms. Suman Bagga, Counsel for appellant, that the entire compensation amount, as per impugned award, has been deposited by the Insurance Company before the Registry of this Court vide order dated 08th January 2016, and 50% thereof stands released to the claimants, in terms of directions of the Tribunal in the impugned award. This fact stands confirmed by Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate for claimants. 14.

This appeal stands disposed of with these directions. 15.

Pending applications (if any) are rendered as infructuous. 16.

Statutory deposit (if any) shall be refunded to appellant. 17.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J FEBRUARY 18, 2026/sm/tk The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.