M/S SURJEET AUTOMBILES vs UMESH & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~87 & 88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 24th February 2026 (87) + MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & CM APPL. 48308/2018, CM APPL. 48310/2018 M/S SURJEET AUTOMBILES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Dhingra, Mr. Nishant Kumar, Ms. Shalini Dhingra, Advocates. versus UMESH & ORS .....Respondents Through: None. (88) + MAC.APP. 1064/2018 & CM APPL. 49931/2018, CM APPL. 1491/2023 M/S SURJEET AUTOMBOILES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Dhingra, Mr. Nishant Kumar, Ms. Shalini Dhingra, Advocates. versus UMESH & ORS .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL JUDGMENT ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been preferred by M/s Surjeet Automobiles Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 1 of 9 Signing Date:27.02.2026 12:22:52 through its proprietor [appellant herein], assailing the award dated 10th July 2015, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North East, Karardooma Courts (‘MACT’) in DAR No. 320/2010 titled as “Nadeem & Anr. v. Umesh & Ors”. 2. Mr. Pradeep Dhingra, counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, states that MACT proceeded on an erroneous basis by impleading appellant/M/s Surjeet Automobiles as the owner of the vehicle, arrayed as respondent no.2 before the MACT. 3. On 17th May 2013, the MACT recorded that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte, whereas the Investigating Officer [IO] reported that respondent no.3/registered owner was not traceable. 4. Aside from that, in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that appellant [respondent no.2 before the MACT], was the owner of the offending vehicle and had not participated in the trial despite service and was held as jointly liable to pay compensation along with respondent no.1, who w