ANITA & ORS. vs HDFC ERGO GEN INS CO LTD & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 17.04.2025 + MAC.APP. 259/2022 ANITA & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Ms. Shweta Garg and Ms. Bharti Bassist, Advocates versus HDFC ERGO GEN INS CO LTD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Niyati, Advocate for R-1 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral) 1. The present Appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 impugning the judgment dated 18.05.2022 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-01 Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the Claim Petition as filed by the Appellants has been dismissed. 2. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants submits that although the Claim Petition was listed for hearing for the first time on 22.01.2020, no Notice was issued. The learned Tribunal, on that date, proceeded to frame a preliminary issue in the matter, which was whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. 2.1 It is contended that on several dates thereafter including the period of the ensuing Covid, the matter was heard only on the preliminary issue framed by the Court. No Notice was issued to the Respondent on this date either. The learned Tribunal on 16.12.2021 gave a finding that the Claim Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HONEY ARORA Signing Date:19.04.2025 MAC.APP. 259/2022 Page 1 of 2 13:58:20 Petition should be listed in the category of “doubtful/suspicious”. 2.2 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant further submits that the fact that the accident did take place, cannot be said to be doubtful. The police enquiry has been held and there is a report of the Police Station, Karol Bagh, New De