Jaspal Singh vs Nirpat

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 14 September 2026.
th
Pronounced on: 29 October 2026.
nd
Uploaded on: 02 November 2026.

# CNR No. DLHC010492872023
+ MAC.APP. 797/2018 & CM APPL. 47214/2026
JASPAL SINGH .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Hiteshi Kakkar with Mr.
Narender Singh, Advs.

versus

NIRPAT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%


ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by appellant/driver-cum-owner seeking
th
setting aside of award dated 17 May 2018 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’], North District, Rohini
Courts in Suit No. 5569/2016, whereby compensation of Rs. 14,37,419/-
along with interest @ 9% per annum was awarded on account of injuries
sustained by Mr. Nirpat.
The accident
th

2. The accident occurred on 19 September 2014 at about 11:30
p.m., when the motorcycle, being driven by PW-3/ Mahesh with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 1 of 15

respondent no.1/injured as the pillion rider, was allegedly hit by a Tata
407 from behind. Due to this impact, respondent no.1/injured, fell down
and another vehicle, being a Maruti van bearing registration no. DL 1K
5636, ran over his leg. Appellant herein is owner-cum-driver of the said
Maruti van , on whom liability has been fastened by the MACT. It is a
matter of record that the Tata 407 was never traced.
The impugned award
3. The MACT, while considering the issue of negligence, noted that
the testimony of the claimant was not in conformity with the statement
made by the claimant to the police, on the basis of which the FIR was
registered. In the FIR, the claimant had stated that they were first hit,
from behind, by a Tata 407 and, after they fell down, the offending
vehicle came, from behind, and caused injuries. However, a contrary
version was given by the claimant in his testimony before the MACT.
4. The MACT held that the said contradiction was not material,
particularly as the respondent had neither filed any written statement
denying the involvement of the offending vehicle nor otherwise disputed
the occurrence of the accident. Further, PW-3 , Mahesh , brother of the
claimant and an eyewitness to the accident, also deposed regarding the
manner in which the accident had occurred. The MACT found no reason
to disbelieve his testimony.
5. Further, during the cross-examination of PW-1 , the claimant, no
suggestion was put disputing the manner in which the accident had
occurred. The driver-cum-owner also did not enter the witness box to
establish that the accident had not occurred due to his rash and negligent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 2 of 15

driving. The criminal case record showed that the driver-cum-owner had
been indicted by the police, but he had not approached any higher
authority or any other forum challenging his implication in the case. In
view of the aforesaid circumstances, the MACT concluded that the
accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Jaspal
Singh .
Submissions on behalf of Appellant
6. Ms. Hiteshi Kakkar , counsel for appellant/owner-cum-driver,
points out to the testimony of respondent/injured, who stated that the FIR
had been recorded on a statement given by his brother/ Mahesh , whereas
the FIR itself states otherwise. It is submitted that the accident occurred
th
on 19 September 2014 and the statement of injured was recorded on
rd
03 October 2014, after a delay of 15 days and no explanation has been
given for the delay.
7. She further states that respondent/injured, in his evidence by way
of affidavit, does not mention Tata 407 at all, whereas PW-3/ Mahesh
states that they were first hit by the Tata 407 and thereafter by the
Maruti van . However, the FIR which was alleged to be recorded on the
statement of injured/claimant mentions that the motorcycle was hit first
by Tata 407 from behind and thereafter by the Maruti van . It is therefore
contended that the contradiction in the testimonies of petitioner witness
and the FIR raises a serious question about the factum of the accident
and the same was before the MACT but was not considered.

8. Ms. Hiteshi Kakkar further points out to Serial No. 11 of the
Detailed Accident Report [‘ DAR ’], which records that the motorcycle
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 3 of 15

was being driven by respondent/injured, contrary to the statements of
both PW-1 /injured and PW-3/ Mahesh, wherein it is stated that Mahesh
was driving, whose license was not verified.
9. On the other hand, if instead, respondent no.1/injured was driving,
then respondent no.1/injured testimony, during his cross-examination,
that he did not hold a valid driving licence and that he was not wearing a
helmet at the time of the accident, would become relevant.
10. Ms. Hiteshi Kakkar , counsel, then submits that, as per the MLC,
respondent no.1/injured was taken to the hospital by his relative, namely
Rampal ( brother ). However, neither has Rampal given any testimony in
this regard nor does it corroborate the testimony of respondent
no.1/injured, who stated that he was taken to the hospital by his brother
PW-3/ Mahesh on his shoulder and that it took them 45 minutes to reach
there. In this context, she points to the fact that the said hospital is 9
kilometres away from the spot of the accident and it is quite impossible
that the brother could carry the injured on his shoulder and cover the
distance of 9 kilometres in 45 min . This would also be in contradiction to
th
MLC, where time of reaching the hospital is noted as 8:50 a.m. on 20
September 2024, while the accident occurred around 11:30 pm the
previous date.
11. Furthermore, Ms. Kakkar submits that respondent no.1/injured
changed four different hospitals after reaching Brahm Shakti Hospital ,
due to which his infection developed and his leg had to be amputated,
and for which he was solely responsible.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 4 of 15

12. The involvement of the vehicle is also questioned as
respondent/claimant in his cross examination admitted that he did not see
the offending van before the accident and its number was disclosed by
his brother. The testimony of the only other eye-witness PW-3/ Mahesh
is contradictory to the statement of respondent/claimant.
Submission of Respondent
13. Mr. S.N. Parashar , to the contrary, contends that driver-cum-
owner chose not to file a written statement before the MACT to canvass
their version of events and no evidence has been led by them as well.
Further, driver-cum-owner did not even step into the witness box. Even
after FIR and chargesheet was filed against them, no complaint has been
made for wrongful implication.
rd
14. In the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 03 October
2018 given by Nirpat , it is mentioned that the Tata 407 had hit them and
thereafter they were hit by the Maruti van , therefore, the statement of
claimant that they were hit by Tata 407 was consistent with the FIR.
15. Further, counsel for claimant relies on the fact that an FIR was
filed against the driver-cum-owner which culminated in the chargesheet.
The filing of the chargesheet is proof enough of the negligent conduct of
the driver-cum-owner.
Analysis
16. The Court has assessed the contentions of counsel for the parties.
As per counsel for appellant, there are serious contradictions and
inconsistencies in facts, as available on record, as also testimonies
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 5 of 15

available both in criminal proceedings as well as before the MACT. It
would be useful to analyse them in a structured manner.
th
17. The accident occurred on 19 September 2014 at about 11:30 p.m.
near Radha Krishan Mandir, Main Road, Pooth Khurd, Bawana, Delhi .
Injured Nirpat stated that he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven
by the brother, Mahesh , and a Maruti van hit him from behind, as a
result of which he fell down on the road and the vehicle ran over his leg,
due to which he suffered multiple injuries.
18. No written statement was filed by the driver-cum-owner. Claimant
examined himself as PW1 , Dr. Vivek Kumar Pathak as PW2 and his
brother Mahesh Kumar as PW3 (who stated he was driving the
motorcycle). The MACT noted in paragraph 5 that “ the evidence of the
petitioner is somehow not in conformity with the statement which was
given by the petitioner to the police upon which the FIR was registered ”.
The MACT noted that the statement given to the police by the claimant
upon which FIR was registered was that the motorcycle was first hit by
some Tata 407 from behind. However, without any analysis, the MACT
reached a conclusion that “ being injured, petitioner is an actual
eyewitness of the accident ” and that no suggestion was given to PW1
regarding the manner of the accident.
19. The earliest report of the accident is in the DD Entry No. 7A , PS
th
Bawana dated 20 September 2014. The entry records that, pursuant to a
PCR call, MLC No. 894/2014 was prepared at Brahm Shakti Hospital in
respect of the injured, Nirpat , aged 25 years and a resident of Rohini,
and that the accident had occurred near Bawana. There is no mention of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 6 of 15

the details of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the FIR was registered on
rd
03 October 2014, after a delay of 15 days, on the basis of information
provided by the injured. He stated that he was riding pillion on a
motorcycle driven by Mahesh when a Tata 407 attempted to overtake
them from behind and struck the motorcycle on the side, causing them to
fall onto the road. The van bearing registration No. DL-1K-5636 then ran
over him, following which his brother took him to Brahm Shakti
Hospital. As they were unable to obtain proper treatment, they went to
Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Mangolpuri , and thereafter to Mangalam
Private Hospital in Pooth Khurd, Delhi . Since they were still not
receiving proper treatment, they went to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital ,
rd
Punjabi Bagh , on 23 September 2014. As they were occupied with his
rd
treatment, they could not contact the police. Accordingly, on 03
October 2014, his brother, Rampal , informed the police, following which
the police visited Maharaja Agarsen Hospital to record his statement.
Consequently, a charge sheet was filed against Jaspal Singh , the
appellant herein, under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
20. However, in contrast, the claimant in his evidence by way of
affidavit stated that he did not mention Tata 407 at all and instead stated
that the Maruti van, driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and
hit the motorcycle, as a result of which they fell down and the Maruti
van ran over the right leg. He did state that he was taken to Brahm Shakti
Hospital by his brother where MLC No. 894/2014 was prepared. He was
subsequently taken to SGM Hospital , where he remained admitted from
th nd
20 September 2014 to 22 September 2014; thereafter, he was admitted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 7 of 15

nd rd
to Mangalam Hospital from 22 September 2014 to 23 September
2014; and finally, he was admitted to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital from
rd th
23 September 2014 to 05 October 2014. His right leg was amputated
th
above the knee on 28 September 2014.
21. In his cross-examination, he denied that he had mentioned the
offending vehicle as a tempo Tata 407 in his statement given to the
police or that the FIR was recorded on his statement. He stated that FIR
was recorded on the statement given by his brother. He further stated that
the number of the Maruti van was disclosed to him by his brother and he
did not see any Tata 407 at the spot. He stated that he was carried to
Brahm Shakti Hospital by his brother, on his shoulders, which took
about 45 minutes. He further denied that the accident was caused by the
Tata 407 and not by respondent’s car.
22. PW3 , Mahesh Kumar , the claimant’s brother, stated that a Tata
407 came from behind, overtook the motorcycle from the left side, hit
the left side handle of the motorcycle, as a result of which they fell down
on the middle of the road. While they were lying down on the road, the
Maruti van came and ran over the lower leg of his brother Nirpat . He
stated that he was immediately taken to Brahm Shakti Hospital by him
and the MLC was prepared. In his cross-examination, he stated that no
MLC was prepared for PW3’s injury and he was not examined. He stated
that he did not note down the number of Tata 407 vehicle. He contacted
the police with PCR at 100 number. PCR van reached at the spot. He
then stated that he had noted down the number of the offending vehicle
on a stone lying at the spot by using clay at the spot and then noted it in
the diary. He then added that he had noted the number on a piece of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 8 of 15

paper and not in the diary. After noting down the number he took his
brother to the roadside. The police had not arrived at the spot till then.
23. The MLC of Brahm Shakti Hospital records that he was brought
th
in by Rampal , claimant’s brother, on 20 September 2014 at 08:50 a.m.
and he was referred to ortho consultant and was admitted. The MLC
th
records that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 19
September 2014 at approximately 11:30 p.m., as reported by his brother.
It further records that the injured was calm, conscious, and oriented to
time, place, and person.
24. However, the next MLC from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital ,
th
Mangolpuri was recorded at 20 September 2014 at 10:30 a.m.
25. In the statement recorded pursuant to notice under Section 133 of
the Motor Vehicles Act , Jaspal Singh recorded that he was owner of this
vehicle and deployed it at Meera Model School, Janakpuri and he
th
himself drives it. On 19 September 2014, he said his car was not
involved in any accident.
26. As is evident from the foregoing narration, there are serious
inconsistencies regarding the manner in which the accident occurred and
the events that followed.
27. First, the DD Entry records that information was received through
a PCR call and that an MLC had been prepared at Brahm Shakti
Hospital . It does not mention the registration number of any offending
vehicle or identify either the complainant or the informant.
28. Second , the FIR was recorded on the statement of the complainant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 9 of 15

recorded at Maharaja Agarsen Hospital , where he had subsequently
been admitted after 15 days, having gone through 3 other hospitals.
Information to the police was apparently given by his brother Rampal
and then the police visited the hospital where his statement is recorded.
His statement mentions that he had been hit by Tata 407 and then by the
Maruti van; whereas, in his statement recorded before the MACT, there
is a categorical absence of any mention of a Tata 407 . In fact, in his
cross-examination, he reiterates that there was no Tata 407 and he did
not disclose that to the police and that the statement was given by his
brother.

29. Third , there is a direct contradiction between the injured
claimant's statement before the MACT and that of his brother, Mahesh
Kumar , as PW-3 categorically mentions the involvement of a Tata 407 .
30. Fourth , the injured claimant stated that Mahesh had taken him to
Brahm Shakti Hospital in approximately 45 minutes. However, the MLC
issued by Brahm Shakti Hospital records that he was brought there by
Rampal , while the records of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital state that he was
brought there by his uncle ( chacha ), Manik Chand . The versions
provided by the injured claimant and Mahesh are therefore materially
different. Further, Rampal was never examined as a witness.
31. Fifth , the accident allegedly occurred at approximately 11:30
p.m., whereas the claimant was admitted to Brahm Shakti Hospital at
approximately 8:15 a.m. the following morning. The hospital records
also note that the claimant was intoxicated. These circumstances do not
corroborate the claimant's testimony that Mahesh carried him on his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 10 of 15

shoulders and that it took approximately 45 minutes to reach the
hospital. Although Mahesh stated that he had taken his brother to the
hospital, he did not mention that he had carried him on his shoulders or
explain how he had transported him there.
32. Sixth , it is unclear who was driving the motorcycle. The DAR,
which has been filed, notes that the injured was driving the motorcycle.
Both PW-3 , Mahesh , and the claimant stated that Mahesh was driving it.
However, there is no mention of any injuries sustained by Mahesh , any
MLC having been prepared in respect of him, or even his presence at
Brahm Shakti Hospital .

33. Seventh , it is also unclear why they had to visit three hospitals
over the following days before finally obtaining treatment at Maharaja
Agarsen Hospital . It may be that they were compelled to move from one
hospital to another because they were not receiving proper treatment.
Nevertheless, the manner in which the claimant dealt with the situation
leaves a lot to be answered. The MLC issued by Brahm Shakti Hospital
does not indicate that he was referred to another medical facility. On the
contrary, it records advice for admission, further consultation with an
orthopaedic consultant, and X-ray and MRI investigations. Counsel for
the appellant submitted that Brahm Shakti Hospital was approximately
nine kilometres away and that it would have been virtually impossible
for Mahesh or anyone else to carry the claimant on shoulder there within
45 minutes. In any event, the MLC issued by Brahm Shakti Hospital
records that the claimant was brought there at approximately 8:15 a.m.
the following morning.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 11 of 15

34. Eighth , the identification of the vehicle/the registration number by
Mahesh , PW3 , is suspect. He states in his cross-examination that he did
not note down the number of Tata 407 and he was carrying his brother
towards the roadside when the van hit him. He did not see the driver of
the offending vehicle and the spot was lit by street light on a pole “ at
some distance ”. In these circumstances, he stated that he noted down the
number of the offending vehicle on a stone lying near the spot by using
clay and then noted on a diary. He later stated that he had written the
number on a piece of paper after borrowing a pen from someone who
had gathered at the spot. Thereafter, he took his brother to the roadside,
and the police had still not arrived . Person from whom he took the pen
did not help him.
35. This sequence of events does not inspire confidence, particularly
when the presence of Mahesh is at the spot is itself in issue. The injured
claimant stated that his brother had disclosed the registration number of
the Maruti van to him and that he had not seen any Tata 407 at the spot.
Thus, the injured claimant had not personally seen the offending vehicle,
and Mahesh's testimony does not inspire confidence regarding the
manner in which he allegedly recorded its registration number. This is
especially so, given that he was purportedly attending to his injured
brother in a state of trauma while simultaneously recording the vehicle's
number, first on a stone and then on a piece of paper, after borrowing a
pen from a passerby, who did not assist them beyond providing the pen.
Further, the incident allegedly occurred at 11:30 p.m., and even
according to Mahesh , the streetlight was some distance away. According
to his testimony, all these events took place in the brief interval during
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 12 of 15

which the Maruti van ran over his brother's leg and sped away. It is
therefore difficult to accept this version as credible. There is no doubt
that the claimant sustained injuries and had to undergo an amputation.
However, particularly when the test of preponderance of probabilities is
applied, it is difficult to accept that the vehicle identified was, in fact, the
offending vehicle.
36. Ninth , the injured claimant stated that Mahesh was wearing a
helmet, whereas he himself was not wearing one. In contrast, Mahesh
stated in evidence by way of affidavit that both of them were wearing
helmets. However, later in the cross examination he stated that he was
wearing a helmet but not injured. Although this is a minor contradiction,
it assumes some significance when considered alongside the other
contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence.
37. Tenth , the Mechanical Inspection Report of the motorcycle
records “ no fresh damage ”, although the motorcycle was inspected on
th
15 February 2015. The Mechanical Inspection Report of the Maruti van
th
inspected on 6 February 2015, contains the same observation. This
circumstance may not be significant in light of the versions given by the
injured claimant and Mahesh that the Maruti van ran over the claimant's
leg and, therefore, would not necessarily have sustained any damage.
38. In the opinion of this Court, the numerous inconsistencies and
contradictions in the testimonies and documents on record do not support
the conclusion reached by the MACT that the offending vehicle, namely
the Maruti van , was involved in the accident. Surprisingly, despite
noting a few significant contradictions, the MACT proceeded, without
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 13 of 15

analysing them, and relied on the fact that a criminal case had been
registered and a charge sheet had been filed. Although the registration of
an FIR followed by the filing of a charge sheet may carry persuasive
value, it does not negate the fact that the basic facts and circumstances
emerging from the criminal proceedings are entirely at odds with those
presented before the MACT. Further, the fact that the driver-cum-owner
did not file a written statement or appear before the MACT does not
deprive the appellant of the right to challenge the conclusions reached by
the MACT or its assessment of the testimonies and documents on record.
The appellant stated that he had engaged an advocate, but the advocate
misled him by failing to file a reply to the claim petition or defend him
before the MACT and had concealed this fact from him. As submitted by
counsel, the appellant is now approximately 66 years of age.
39. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the issue of
negligence of the offending vehicle does not stand proved, on
preponderance of probabilities. There are too many significant
inconsistencies on the record, rendering the claim of negligence
unworthy and untenable.
40. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award passed
by the MACT is set aside.
41. At best, the accident can be stated to be a hit run accident with the
vehicle Tata 407 being untraced. Considering that this is a case of ‘ hit-
and-run ’ by an untraced vehicle, which occurred in 2014, the claimants
shall be at liberty to approach the Claims Enquiry Officer of the Sub-
Division or Taluka in which the accident took place, in view of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 14 of 15

procedure provided under Clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme, 1989 ,
formulated by the Central Government under Section 163(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Alternatively, claimants may seek
compensation under Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor
Accidents Scheme, 2022 , if applicable.
42. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
43. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
44. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.


(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 29, 2026/MK/ zb



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:02.11.2026
10:04:03
MAC.APP. 797/2018 Page 15 of 15