Delhi High Court - Orders
Raj Kumar Sah @ Raj Kumar & Ors vs Ram Jeevan Lath & Ors on 27 January, 2026
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 82/2026
RAJ KUMAR SAH @ RAJ KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. F.K. Jha, Mr. Gaurav Jha, Ms.
Shalini Jha, Mr. Tarun Verma, Mr.
Aryamaan Singh, Advs.
versus
RAM JEEVAN LATH & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. for R-3 (through
VC).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
ORDER
% 27.01.2026 CM APPL. 5431/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, application stands disposed of.
MAC.APP. 82/20261. This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd December 2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ('MACT') in MACT No.619/2017, whereby the claim filed by the legal representatives of the deceased (Raja Kumar) was dismissed. The accident had occurred on 26th July 2017 when the deceased was driving a motorcycle and was hit from behind by a bus. He was taken to hospital but died during treatment. FIR No.196/2017 was registered and charge-sheet was filed under Sections 279/337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Ms. Anju Kumari (wife of deceased/PW1) had deposed and has filed This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:32:14 affidavit Ex.PW1/1, placing all the necessary documents on record.
3. Mr. F.K. Jha, counsel for appellant argues that the conclusion of the Tribunal is based on untenable issues, particularly the observation in paragraph 28 of the impugned award relating to proxy litigation on behalf of advocates of claimant, as wife of deceased/PW1 was not able to confirm the contents of her affidavit. Further, the observation in paragraph 29 relating to the alleged intoxication of deceased, despite there being no evidence to that effect and there being no such evidence on behalf of eye-witnesses.
4. Further, Mr. Jha contends that since the chargesheet has already been filed, charging the accused driver of negligence, therefore question of contributory negligence, does not arise.
5. Accordingly, issue Notice to respondent no.3 on steps being taken by appellants through all permissible modes including e-mail, etc.
6. Mr. A.K. Soni, Advocate accepts Notice on behalf of respondent no.3/Insurance Company.
7. Reply be filed within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of three weeks thereafter.
8. Trial Court Record be requisitioned and placed on record. Digital copy of the same be supplied to the counsels for the parties, if so requested.
9. Counsels for parties will file their respective note of arguments not exceeding three pages, synopsizing their contentions along with list of citations, which they wish to rely upon, cross-referencing PDF pages of the Court File. The same will be exchanged inter se counsels at least three days prior to the next date of hearing.
10. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 26th February 2026.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:32:14
11. List on 1st April 2026.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 27, 2026/ak/zb This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/02/2026 at 20:32:14