NIDHI GULATI vs ANIL KHOSLA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 10.12.2025 + MAC.APP. 37/2023 & CM APPL. 68115-68116/2024 NIDHI GULATI .....Appellant Through: Mr. G.D. Kathuria and Mr. Neeraj Gahlaut, Advocates. versus ANIL KHOSLA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Kanupriya Tiwari, Advocate for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The appellant – claimant, who was injured in a road accident on 04.04.2019, has filed this appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“Tribunal”] dated 13.09.2022 in MACT No. 518/2019. She seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded to her. 2. Notice of this appeal was originally issued only to respondent No. 2 – Shriram General Insurance Company Limited [“Insurance Company”], by order dated 20.01.2023. Respondent No. 2 has since entered appearance. However, by order dated 09.05.2025, directions were given for service of notice upon respondent No.1 [the driver and owner of the insured vehicle] as well, although it was recorded that liability to make payment lies only on respondent No. 2. 3. In terms of the said order, Mr. G.D. Kathuria, learned counsel for the appellant, states that an effort has been made to serve respondent No. 1 at the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties. However, both addresses were found to be locked, and local inquiry at one of the addresses elicited Signature Not Verified Signed By:SOMYA MAC.APP. 37/2023 Page 1 of 7 SATIJA Signing Date:12.12.2025 20:09:40 information that respondent No. 1 has died. 4. In view of the fact that, in the present case, no recovery rights have been granted to the Insurance Company against respondent No. 1, Mr. Kathuria and Ms. Kanupriya Tiwari, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submit that service upon respondent No. 1