M/S SURJEET AUTOMBILES vs UMESH & ORS

$~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 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 ap