Magma Hdi General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Indu Gupta & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~4 to 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 09 July 2026
+ MAC.APP.335/2018 & CM APPL.12965/2018, CM APPL.
12966/2018, CM APPL. 88/2024
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Mr. Vaibhav
Verma, Advocates.
versus
JAGJEET KAUR & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
Respondent no.1.
Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advocates.
(5)
+ MAC.APP. 260/2023
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Mr. Vaibhav
Verma, Advocates.
versus
SHAKUNTALA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
Respondent no.1.
Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advocates.
(6)
+ MAC.APP. 262/2023
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Mr. Vaibhav
Verma, Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 1 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
INDU GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
Respondent no.1.
Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advocates.
(7)
+ MAC.APP. 265/2023
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Mr. Vaibhav
Verma, Advocates.
versus
RITA MAHAJAN & ORS. (FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INS. CO.
LTD.) .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate for
Respondent no.1 & 2.
Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advocates.
(8)
+ MAC.APP. 334/2023
SMT RITA MAHAJAN & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
versus
SH PRAMOD KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi, Mr. Vaibhav
Verma, Advocates for Respondent
no.3/Insurance Company.
Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advocates for
Respondent no.5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 2 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)
1. These appeals have been filed in respect of an accident which
th
occurred on 26 November 2013 between 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. when Arvinder
Singh along with companions, Rishabh Mahajan , Umesh Kumar and
Mohit , were travelling in a Swift car bearing registration no. DL-8CU-8120
(hereinafter, ‘ Swift car ’). When the Swift car reached the over bridge on
Yamuna Expressway, they collided with a Canter bearing registration no.
UP-84T-0509 (hereinafter ‘ offending vehicle ’), driven by Pramod Kumar ,
owned by Charan Singh and insured by Magma HDI General Insurance
Co. Ltd. (‘ Magma ’). All the occupants received injuries and ultimately
succumbed to the injuries. MACT held that the accident was caused due to
negligence of the driver of offending vehicle and awarded compensation to
the legal representatives.
2. MAC.APP.335/2018, MAC.APP.260/2023, MAC.APP.262/2023
and MAC.APP.265/2023 were filed by Magma/Insurance Company
asserting that there was negligence on the part of Arvinder Singh ( driver of
the Swift car ) since he crashed into the offending vehicle from its rear end,
contributory negligence ought to be attributed to him. Considering that the
Swift car was insured with Generali Central Insurance Co. Ltd. (‘ Generali
Central ’) (formerly known as Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd .),
they have been arrayed as respondent in these appeals.
3. As regards the other co-passengers, it ought to be treated as a case of
composite negligence between the offending vehicle and the Swift car,
therefore, the insurer of Swift car-Generali Central should be held partly
liable.
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 3 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
4. Mr. Ved Vyas Tripathi , counsel appearing on behalf of
Magma/Insurance Company, has pointed out to the site plan asserting that
it was a four-lane carriage way on the Yamuna Expressway, and the Swift
car was being driven in the second lane and collided from with the
offending vehicle from the rear. In his support, he has relied upon decisions
of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal
(2007) 5 SCC 428, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka , (1980) 1 SCC 30
and Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2018) 6 SCC 765.
5. The propositions placed by Mr. Tripathi were; firstly , relying upon
the decision in Meena Variyal , ( supra ), negligence has to be provided
specifically by the claimant in order to fasten liability on the offending
vehicle and the insurer; secondly , principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot
apply to situations where there are complicated facts i.e. rear end collisions
or contributory negligence of the driver which have to be then sustained
and assessed; and thirdly , as per Nishan Singh ( supra ), contributory
negligence has to be fastened on the vehicle which collided with the vehicle
in front from the rear end.
6. To the contrary, Mr. Rajeev M. Roy , counsel appearing on behalf of
Generali Central/Insurance Company and Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel
appearing on behalf of claimants placed reliance on the testimony of eye-
witness, Mr. Mahender Singh (‘ PW-4 ’) in MAC.APP.260/2023 ,
MAC.APP.262/2023 and MAC.APP.265/2023 . He stated that he was
travelling on the Yamuna Expressway on that day at about 04.00 a.m. and
saw a Canter ( offending vehicle ) going towards Delhi from Agra side,
which came into the same lane as that of the Swift car and applied
emergency brakes, due to which the Swift car struck against the offending
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 4 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
vehicle and was dragged for a distance of about 100 metres.
7. PW-4 stated that other public persons had gathered at the spot and
helped in rescue of the occupants and the police arrived after an hour. He
took the phone of injured who was sitting in the rear seat of the car and
informed his relatives. He was duly cross-examined by Magma/Insurance
Company, where he stated that he had not called the police, nor was he
approached for a statement. Since there was no ‘ 100 number ’ call facility in
the year 2013, he was unable to make a complaint. He further provided the
details of his travel between Nozil and Bulandshahar .
8. Mr. Tripathi , however, contented that he was not a credible witness,
since despite his testimony, he had not been a part of the police
investigation and was not part of the criminal proceedings, as well.
9. The Court has assessed and examined the impugned award,
particularly paragraph 23 , which records the testimony of PW4 in fair
amount of detail. Paragraph 23 of the impugned award is extracted as
under:
“ 23. In order to decide the present issue, we may look
into the oral testimony of the eye witness i.e. PW-4, Sh.
Mahender Singh. PW-4 deposed that on 26.11.2013 he
was riding his motorcycle from Nozil, Mathura to
Delhi and at about 03.45 A.M.-04.00 A.M., when he
reached at the flyover of Mirzapur, near Jungle Gram
Roniza, Yamuna Expressway, he saw the offending
vehicle suddenly swerve into the lane of the car and
apply emergency brakes in front of the car, due to
which the car rammed into the rear of the offending
vehicle. He further deposed that the offending vehicle-
dragged the car for about 100 meters due to which all
the occupants of the car sustained grievous injuries.
He further deposed that he took the phone of one of the
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 5 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
occupants of the rear seat of the car and conveyed
information about the accident to his relative. He
further deposed that police arrived at the spot an hour
after the accident and at about 05.50 A.M. all the
occupants of car were shifted to Kailash Hospital. He
further deposed that the accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving of R-1. The above oral
testimony of PW-4 has gone unrebutted and
unchallenged qua R-1 and R-2 as they did not bother to
come forward and cross examine PW-4. PW-4 was
subjected to a brief cross examination by R-3 (insurer
of offending vehicle). During cross examination PW-4
was able to depose about the registration number of
his motorcycle which he was riding at the relevant
time, the exact course of his travel from Bulandshahar
to Nozil and further to Delhi and the time when he left
Nozil for Delhi on the date of accident. PW-4 admitted
that he was not examined as a witness in the relevant
FIR, but he did not betray any signs of falsity or
untruth in his oral testimony as to the facts deposed
before this Tribunal. He declined the sole suggestion
given by R-3 (insurer of the offending vehicle) to the
effect that he (PW-4) did not witness the accident. In
totality, PW-4 seems to have withstood the test of cross
examination as R-3 (insurer of the offending vehicle)
could not bring any material on record which could
discredit the oral testimony of PW-4. During cross
examination by R-4 and R-5, PW-4 reiterated that the
accident took place due to rashness and negligence of
R-1. As such, this Tribunal finds the oral testimony of
PW-4 to be reliable and trustworthy. ”
(emphasis added)
10. What seems to appeal to this Court is the MACT’s observation while
examining the witness, where it was noted that, “ PW-4 admitted that he
was not examined as a witness in the relevant FIR, but he did not betray
any signs of falsity or untruth in his oral testimony as per the facts deposed
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 6 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
before this Tribunal ”. The MACT, therefore, found his oral testimony
reliable and trustworthy. Aside from this, no other evidence has been
placed on record by Magma/Insurance Company, nor has any attempt been
made to summon the driver of offending vehicle in order to establish a case
of contributory negligence.
11. Moreover, the driver of offending vehicle was charge sheeted in the
FIR which has been taken as a strong circumstance to support the testimony
of claimants. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decisions of
Supreme Court in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb , 2025 SCC OnLine SC
497 and Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.
& Anr. 2025:INSC:600 where the Supreme Court held that in the absence
of witness testimonies, an inference of negligence can be drawn by the
MACT on the basis of FIR and charge sheet.
12. Relevant findings of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet ( supra ) are
extracted as under:
“4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has
been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no
further evidence is required to prove that the bus was
being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the
eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to
prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of
the bus driver.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion
that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly
erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to
the claimants.”
(emphasis added)
13. In Meera Bai ( supra ), the relevant observations of Supreme Court
are extracted as under:
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 7 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
“2. The claimants before the Tribunal have filed an
appeal from the order of the High Court which allowed
the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the
claim petition for reason of no eyewitness having been
examined to prove the rash and negligent driving.
3. On facts, it needs to be stated that the accident
occurred on 29.01.2015 when the deceased was
travelling pillion in a motorbike driven and owned by
the second respondent. The FIR was lodged against the
owner driver of the vehicle for the offence of rash and
negligent driving. A charge sheet was filed against the
owner driver. The owner driver filed a written
statement before the Tribunal denying the rash and
negligent driving on his part, however he did not
mount the box to depose that it was not due to his fault
that the accident occurred.
4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness
will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been
lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner
driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion
that there could be no finding that negligence was not
established.”
(emphasis added)
14. In fact, it has been noted by the MACT in paragraph 27 that, since
testimony of Arvinder Singh was not available, in no way can an assertion
be made that the offending vehicle had not swerved into the lane or there
was any mechanical defect due to which the driver of offending vehicle had
to change lanes suddenly, therefore, an inference was drawn that in the
given facts and circumstances, neglect and default was on the part of driver
of offending vehicle.
15. As regards the plea taken by Mr. Tripathi , that the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitor may not apply in cases where the set of facts are complicated
such as the present one, involving a rear end collision, may not hold ground
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 8 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
considering that the proceedings before the MACT are in the nature of an
inquiry and therefore, assessment of negligence has to be conducted on the
test of preponderance of probabilities. Reliance may be placed upon the
decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Shehnaj Begum &
Ors. 2026:DHC:13169, where the Court traversed the law on res ipsa
loquitor in motor accident cases and noted as under:
“ Summarizing
38. From the above discussion relating to the nature of
inquiry before the Tribunal, the operation of the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the applicable
standard of proof, three aspects emerge clearly.
39. First, that the proceedings before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal are in nature of an inquiry
and are not hemmed in by rules of procedure or
evidence. The Supreme Court in Shila Datta (supra)
[passages extracted in paragraph 20 (a) above], has
elaborated on this aspect. Essentially, a claim under
Section 165 of the MV Act, is neither a suit nor an
adversarial lis.
40. Tribunal holds an inquiry and makes an award to
determine compensation, which ought to be just and
reasonable. The procedure to be followed is
summarised in the best discretion of the Tribunal. It
has the power under Section 169 of MV Act to summon
persons possessing special knowledge of the matters
relevant to the inquiry.
41. In Anita Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court
emphasised that fault may not be found merely because
Tribunals do not examine some of the best
eyewitnesses, as in a criminal trial, but should do their
best to analyse the material placed on record by the
parties.
42. Having clearly sketched the contours of the
procedure undertaken by a Tribunal, it brings us to the
second issue, which is determination of negligence.
The nature of the accident and the basic facts
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 9 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
surrounding the same are presented before the
Tribunal in the form of a DAR (Detailed Accident
Report), or through an FIR, or a recording in a police
diary, along with the claim for compensation. In order
to arrive at an assessment of negligence and, therefore,
consequential liability in tort law, the principle of res
ipsa loquitur, particularly in accident cases, is often
brought into play.
43. Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur constitutes an
exception to the general rule that the burden of proving
negligence lies upon the claimant. The facts, “tell its
own story” and “speak for itself”. The fact of the
accident itself sometimes constitutes evidence of
negligence. The principal function of the maxim is to
prevent injustice, that would be caused to a plaintiff
who would otherwise be compelled to prove the precise
cause of the accident and responsibility of the
defendant, when the facts are unknown to plaintiff but
lie only within the knowledge of defendant. The burden
then shifts to the defendant, who can, by leading
evidence, rebut the inference drawn by the Court based
on the doctrine.
…
45. Therefore, for application of the principle, it must
be shown that the offending vehicle was under the
management of the defendant and that the accident was
such that, in the ordinary course of things, it would not
have happened if those who were in management had
used proper care. Having reached a reasonable
inference based on the facts of the accident and being
presented with a defence raised by defendants that they
exercised care to avert foreseeable harm, the issue
before the Tribunal would be how to balance the two
aspects and what parameter is to be applied in
measuring this balance, or in assessing which side the
scales tilt.
46. This brings us to the third aspect, which is the test
to be applied. It is well settled that the test or the
burden of proof which applies is not that of beyond a
reasonable doubt (as in criminal cases), but on the test
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 10 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
of preponderance of probabilities.”
(emphasis added)
16. Since no other evidence has been led to prove the assertion of
contradictory negligence, except for reliance placed on Nishan Singh
( supra ), which cannot be applied as a formulaic principle, but applies on
the specific facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to displace the
finding of MACT in this regard.
17. Accordingly, the finding of negligence arrived at by the MACT in
the impugned award is sustained.
18. An additional plea for enhancement of compensation awarded to the
deceased- Rishabh Mahajan in MAC.APP. 334/2023 , has been made by Mr.
S.N. Parashar , counsel for claimants.
19. Mr. S.N. Parashar , stated that the MACT awarded minimum wages
of an unskilled worker while calculating loss of dependency, despite there
being educational certificates and income tax returns (‘ ITRs ’) placed by the
claimants on record. The educational certificates show that the deceased
was in his first year, studying Bachelor of Computer Applications (‘ BCA ’)
at Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University in Delhi. Mother of
deceased had also stated in evidence by way of affidavit that the deceased
was working as an Event Manager and earning money as a DJ artist and
was supporting the family.
20. Considering that the deceased was doing a professional degree
course, even assuming potentiality of income, awarding minimum wages of
an unskilled worker may not subsist. Accordingly, minimum wages of a
skilled worker at Rs.9,802/- as pleaded by Mr. S.N. Parashar , shall be
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
applied for assessing loss of dependency.
21. Further, compensation awarded towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses shall be aligned as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, therefore, same shall be awarded at Rs. 16,500/-
each.
22. Compensation awarded to claimants in MAC.APP. 334/2023 is
revised as under:
Heads Awarded by the
Tribunal
Awarded by this
Court
S.
No.
1 Income of deceased (A) Rs. 8,086/- Rs.9,802/-
2 Add: Future Prospects (B) @
40%
Rs. 3,234.4/- Rs. 3,920.8/-
3 Less: Personal expenses of
deceased (C)
Rs. 5,660.2/-
Rs. 6,861.4/-
4 Loss of dependency (A+B)-C=D Rs. 5,660.2/- Rs. 6,861.4/-
5 Annual loss of dependency
(Dx12) = (E)
Rs. 67,922.4/- Rs. 82,336.8/-
6 Multiplier (F) 18 18
7 Total loss of dependency (E x
F)= (G)
Rs. 12,22,603/-
Rs. 14,82,063/-
8 Compensation for loss of
consortium (H)
Rs. 88,000/- Rs. 88,000/-
9 Compensation for loss of estate
(I)
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 16,500/-
10 Compensation towards funeral
expenses (J)
Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 16,500/-
11 Total compensation
(G+H+I+J) =K
Rs. 13,50,603/-
Rs. 16,03,063/-
12 Rate of Interest Awarded 9% 9%
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 12 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
Directions
23. In view of the above, compensation payable to claimants in
MAC.APP. 334/2023 has been enhanced by Rs. 2,52,460/- [‘ enhanced
amount ’]
24. Enhanced amount along with accrued interest will be deposited by
Magma/Insurance Company before the MACT within the next four weeks,
which will be released to claimants as lumpsum amount, within two weeks
thereafter.
25. This Court has passed orders directing deposit of compensation and
th
release of part compensation. I n MAC.APP.335/2018 , vide order dated 6
April 2018 Magma/Insurance Company was directed to deposit 60% of the
rd
compensation before the Registrar General of this Court and on 3 January
2024, further directions for release of 50% compensation were given.
Magma/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount,
along with accrued interest before the Registrar General within six weeks,
which shall be released as per the directions of MACT.
26. In MAC.APP.260/2023 and MAC.APP.262/2023 , vide order dated
th
17 May 2025, this Court directed Magma/Insurance Company to deposit
75% of the compensation before the MACT, and similarly in
MAC.APP.265/2023 , directions for deposit of 75% compensation before
th
the MACT were passed on 19 May 2023. These amounts were to be
released as per the scheme of impugned award.
27. Considering that these appeals have been disposed of, balance
compensation, along with accrued interest, be deposited before MACT
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 13 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08
within the next six weeks, which will be released to respective claimants, as
per the directions of the MACT given in the impugned award.
28. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
29. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
30. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.
31. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned bank for information
and necessary compliance.
32. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to Magma/Insurance Company,
only if the order of deposit has been complied with.
33. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. is now Magma General
Insurance Ltd. and, therefore, refund of statutory deposit shall be made in
that name.
34. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
JULY 9, 2026/ ak/ sp
Signature Not Verified
MAC.APP.335/2018 & other connected appeals Page 14 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:13.07.2026
15:20:08