VIMLESH YADAV AND ORS vs HARI OM AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 23rd April 2026 + MAC.APP. 451/2023 VIMLESH YADAV AND ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr. C. Sanal Namhiar, Mr. Abhinav Shailly, Ms. Chetna Singh and Ms. Swati Dwivedi Advs. versus HARI OM AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr. Harshit Singh, Advs. for R-3/OIC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J (Oral) 1. Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, counsel for claimants, assails the award dated 31st March 2023 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’), South-West District, Dwarka Courts in MACP No. 475/2017, whereby the claim filed by the claimants was dismissed as negligence of driver could not be proved. 2. The present case pertains to an accident that occurred on 24th August 2016, wherein the deceased, a trained Army Commando, qualified for NSG, aged 31 years, was travelling on his Honda Activa Scooty from Delhi Cantt to Manesar, Haryana, when he was hit from behind by a Chevrolet Enjoy taxi bearing no. HR-55U-7317, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY MAC APP 451/2023 1 of 7 Signing Date:28.04.2026 15:10:46 3. The MACT concluded that the claimants, being the Legal Representatives of the deceased (wife, two sons and parents) were unable to prove negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle for the purposes of the claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (‘MV Act’), and accordingly dismissed the claim. 4. Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, however, took this Court through the FIR, the chargesheet, the mechanical inspection report, the site plan, and the statement given by the owner under Section 133 of the MV Act. 5.