M/S Mange Ram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs Pushpa Devi & Ors.

$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 17 July 2026

+ MAC.APP. 254/2020 & CM APPL. 31557/2020 CM APPL.
31559/2020 CM APPL. 43573/2023
M/S MANGE RAM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. B.S. Jakhar, Mr. Vikram Singh
Jakhar, Ms. Bhawna Jakhar, Mr.
Neeraj Jakhar, Ms. Nidhi Jakhar, Mr.
Shubham Dabas, Mr. Viraj Rathee,
Mr. Harris Mudgal and Ms. Meenu
Sindh, Advs.
versus

PUSHPA DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/ Hyundai agency assailing
rd
impugned judgment and award dated 03 March 2020, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
[‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], in MACP No. 99A/2016 , whereby compensation of
Rs.13,92,173/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded
[‘ impugned award ’]. Vide impugned award, the MACT fastened joint and
several liability upon appellant/ Hyundai agency and respondent no. 5/ Shree
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 254/2020 Page- 1/7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:23.07.2026
10:23:15

Chand Sharma .
rd
2. The present appeal arises out of an accident which occurred on 03
March 2020. The offending vehicle was a Santro car bearing registration No.
DL-4CK-0078 [hereinafter ‘ offending vehicle ’], which led to the death of
Vinod Kumar . The claim for compensation was filed by his legal
representatives. The offending vehicle was registered in the name of Rahul
Sharma [ respondent no.6 herein ], and was found to have been driven by
respondent no. 5/ Shree Chand Sharma on the date of the accident.
Subsequently towards the final leg of the proceedings, it transpired that
respondent no. 5/ Shree Chand Sharma claimed that he had been told to drive
the offending vehicle by appellant/ Hyundai agency , and respondent no.
6/ Rahul Sharma claimed that he had sold the offending vehicle to
th
appellant/ Hyundai agency, in exchange for another vehicle, on 18 February
2014.
3. On the issue of liability, the Tribunal examined the testimonies and,
thereafter, concluded that appellant/ Hyundai agency had failed to prove on
record, the transaction of sale of the offending vehicle to respondent no.
5/ Shree Chand Sharma , though the sale order and delivery receipt had been
placed on record. It further noted that said documents were not put to
respondent no. 5/ Shree Chand Sharma during his cross-examination, and no
request was ever made to recall R1W1 [ Shree Chand Sharma ] for further
cross-examination. The MACT, therefore, held that respondent no. 5/ Shree
Chand Sharma , being the ultimate purchaser, was liable in his capacity as the
driver and principal tortfeasor. The appellant/ Hyundai agency was also held
to be jointly liable in its capacity as the purchaser and the possessor of the
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 254/2020 Page- 2/7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:23.07.2026
10:23:15

offending vehicle. Accordingly, the liability was held to be joint and several.
4. Respondent no. 5/ Shree Chand Sharma filed a separate appeal before
this Court, being MAC.APP. 116/2022 , which was titled as “ Shree Chand
Sharma v. Pushpa Devi & Ors .”. During the course of the proceedings in the
aforesaid appeal, respondent no. 5/ Shree Chand Sharma and claimants
entered into a settlement vide Memorandum of Understanding [‘ MoU ’] dated
th
12 November 2025, for a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- , that is approximately 50% of
the awarded compensation. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of vide
th
order dated 12 November 2025.
th
5. Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for claimants, made a statement on 07
July 2026, as recorded in the order of this Court, that if appellant/ Hyundai
agency loses this appeal, it would be liable to pay 50% of the compensation,
since the claimants had, by agreement, settled for 50% of the compensation
with respondent no. 5/ Shree Chand Sharma in MAC.APP. 116/2022 .
6. Mr. Bikram Singh Jakhar , counsel for appellant/ Hyundai agency ,
contends that it could not be held liable because it had merely acted as a go-
between, and transferred the offending vehicle, which was owned by
respondent no.6/ Rahul Sharma to respondent no. 5/ Shree Chand Sharma .
7. It was an admitted position that appellant/ Hyundai agency had taken
th
the offending vehicle from respondent no.6/ Rahul Sharma on 18 February
2014, giving an adjustment of Rs.30,000/- towards purchase of a new car. The
officer from the Transport Department, Sh. Joginder Singh , deposed as
R2W1 , and stated that he had brought the record pertaining to registration of
the offending vehicle. The registration of the offending vehicle was valid
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 254/2020 Page- 3/7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:23.07.2026
10:23:15

th th
from 29 January 1999 to 28 January 2014, for a period of 15 years . He
deposed that the offending vehicle continued to be registered in the name of
respondent no. 6/ Rahul Sharma at the time of the accident. The registration
certificate [‘ RC ’] had been placed on record as Ex.R2W1/2 . This Court has
perused the same, and found that the registration of offending vehicle expired
th
on 28 January 2014.
Analysis
8. It is quite surprising to note that, during the exchange process whereby
appellant/ Hyundai agency took the offending vehicle from respondent no.
6/ Rahul Sharma , in exchange for new car, it did not notice that the RC of
offending vehicle had already expired. Further, it is quite unbelievable that a
responsible car company, such as the appellant/ Hyundai agency , would not
check the RC of a vehicle before taking it into its possession.
9. Needless to say, the knowledge of the expired RC has to be attributed
to appellant/ Hyundai agency . Appellant/ Hyundai agency has also stated that
rd
they sold the car to respondent no.5/ Shree Chand Sharma on 03 March
2014. This is borne out from the testimony of managing director of
appellant/ Hyundai agency [ R3W1 ], who stated that there was no
employer-employee relationship between respondent no.5/ Shree Chand
Sharma and their company, and brought on record originals of the sale order
rd
and delivery receipt, both dated 03 March 2014, which were exhibited as
Ex.R3W1/R-1/B and R3W1/R-1/C , respectively.
10. The counsel for appellant/ Hyundai agency has drawn the attention of
this Court to the aforesaid documents, as well as Form 29 and 30 , which were
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 254/2020 Page- 4/7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:23.07.2026
10:23:15

exhibited as Ex.R3W1/R2/2 , and signed by respondent no. 6/ Rahul Sharma
in this regard.
11. During his cross-examination by counsel for respondent no. 6/ Rahul
Sharma , R3W1 stated that the particulars of respondent no.5/ Shree Chand
Sharma , in Form 29 and 30 pertaining to the sale and purchase of the
offending vehicle had not been filled in at the time when the forms were
signed by respondent no.6/ Rahul Sharma . He further stated that aforesaid
particulars are always filled in subsequently, at the time of the purchase of the
vehicle, by the person to whom it is sold. He denied that the suggestion that
offending vehicle was given as scrap to appellant/ Hyundai agency .
12. Contrary to this, respondent no.5/ Shree Chand Sharma stated that he
was not a regular driver of appellant/ Hyundai agency , and the offending
vehicle was handed over to him by appellant/ Hyundai agency for driving. He
stated that he was not aware as to who the registered owner of offending
vehicle was, and that he did not know anyone by the name of Rahul Sharma .
He further stated that he was not an employee of appellant/ Hyundai agency .
13. Having perused all these documents and the testimonies, the sequence
of events as to what had possibly transpired is borne out.
th
14. On 28 January 2014, the registration of the offending vehicle expired.
th
Thereafter, on 18 February 2014, respondent no. 6/ Rahul Sharma , registered
owner of the offending vehicle, exchanged the offending vehicle with the
appellant/ Hyundai agency for a new vehicle, which was given to him at a
discount. On the date, when appellant/ Hyundai agency accepted this
offending vehicle, its registration period had expired. It was, therefore, the
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 254/2020 Page- 5/7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:23.07.2026
10:23:15

responsibility of appellant/ Hyundai agency to ensure that either the
registration was renewed or, alternatively, that the offending vehicle was not
plied on the roads. However, R3W1 , managing director of appellant/ Hyundai
agency , stated in his testimony that they ‘ sold ’ the offending vehicle to
rd
respondent no.5/ Shree Chand Sharma on 03 March 2014.
15. It is inexplicable as to how a responsible agency could execute the sale
documents and delivery receipt, as well as hand over Form 29 and 30 on a day
rd
when the RC had already expired, that is 03 March 2014. This story does not
fit, in the opinion of this Court.
16. The aforesaid is further evident from the discrepancy in signatures of
respondent no.5/ Shree Chand Sharma , on the sale order and delivery receipt,
and those appearing on his statement as R1W1 , as well as on the affidavit to
his written statement, which is a part of the Court record. A bare perusal of
these signatures would show that they are quite dissimilar. It could possibly
be that these documents were created subsequently.
17. However, since this is a matter concerning compensation, the Court is
not passing any further directions in this regard, particularly since counsel for
appellant/ Hyundai agency , has in the meantime, stated that they are willing to
pay their share, amounting to 50% of the awarded compensation.
18. Accordingly, 50% of the total compensation awarded, that is 50% of
Rs. 13,92,173/- , along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date
of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit shall be deposited by
appellant/ Hyundai agency before the Registrar General of this Court.
19. It is further directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 254/2020 Page- 6/7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:23.07.2026
10:23:15

released to the claimants from deposit of the aforesaid amount within a period
of two weeks thereafter. Remaining deposited amount, along with accrued
interest, shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipts [‘ FDRs ’] of Rs. 25,000/-
each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as
maybe calculated. Interest accruing on said FDRs shall be credited to the
designated Savings Bank Account of claimants. The amount of FDRs on
maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon
due verification.
20. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
21. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
22. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 17, 2026/mk/ ya
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP. 254/2020 Page- 7/7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:23.07.2026
10:23:15