MAC.APP./572/2026 of TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs NAVEEN @ NAVEEN KUMAR AND ANR on 17 September 2026

O R D E R

%

17.09.2026

1. The appeal has been filed by appellant/Insurance Company seeking setting aside of judgment dated 01st June 2026, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi [‘MACT/tribunal’], in MACT No.667/2022, whereby compensation of compensation of Rs.8,46,271/-, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, was awarded [‘impugned award’].

2. The impugned award arose out of an accident which occurred on 06th November 2019, when claimant/Naveen Kumar was proceeding towards his work at Pooth Khurd, on his motorcycle. At about 08.40 a.m., when he was crossing Chandpur Chowk, the offending vehicle, i.e. Chota Hathi bearing registration no. DL 1LS 4845, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from the Bawana side and hit his motorcycle. As a result, claimant/Naveen Kumar sustained a fracture and remained under treatment for about eight months. An FIR was registered; however, the final report recorded that the vehicle in question was untraced.

3. The MACT, while assessing the aforesaid issue, took into account contention of the appellant/Insurance Company, in that the offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident since it stood parked at the house of the owner, at 629, Pocket 5, Sector A6 Narela Delhi, for many months.

4. Police recorded the statement of two neighbours, namely Tarannum Jahan and Sandeep Thakur. As per the statement of the Investigating Officer [‘IO’], the mechanical inspection report recorded that battery power of the offending vehicle was ‘nil’ and not fit for a road test, and that the driver's seat and dash board of the vehicle were covered with spider webs. On this basis, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, counsel for appellant/Insurance Company, contends that these facts raise serious doubts regarding involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident.

5. However, there are two aspects which do not support the plea of appellant/Insurance Company, which are as follows:

(i) First, is the statement of claimant/Naveen Kumar himself, on the basis of which, the FIR was registered on the same day i.e. 06th November 2019, wherein he disclosed the registration number and category of the vehicle, as is evident from a perusal of the final report filed.

(ii) Second, as regards the issue of offending vehicle being parked at the residence of the owner for many days, the MACT noted that the photographs placed on record were not in consonance with the version of the IO, since none of the said photographs showed the interior of the offending vehicle. Further, no photograph had been filed showing the cabin of the offending vehicle; it only demonstrated that the vehicle was covered with dust and spider web.

6. On the previous date, the Court had granted liberty to appellant/Insurance Company to file photographs of the offending vehicle. The same have now been placed on record; however, are only of the exterior of the offending vehicle and merely show a bunch of dry leaves lying around tyres of the offending vehicle. Since these are only copies of the photographs, they are not easily discernible. However, it is clear that none of the photographs is of the interior of the vehicle.

7. In this view of the matter, assessment made by the MACT cannot be stated to be inaccurate and therefore, the present appeal cannot be sustained.

8. Accordingly, the plea of appellant/Insurance Company seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment is rejected.

9. Right to recovery has already been granted to appellant/Insurance Company as per paragraph 36 of the impugned award.

10. Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company has also raised an objection to the rate of interest awarded at 9%, stating that the same is on a higher side.

11. The accident in question occurred in 2019, and since the prevailing rate of interest at the time was 7.5% per annum, it is directed that appellant/Insurance shall deposit the awarded compensation, along with accrued interest thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, before the Tribunal within a period of six weeks.

12. The said amount shall thereafter be dispersed to claimant/Naveen Kumar in terms of the directions passed by the Tribunal vide impugned award.

13. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of above directions.

14. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

15. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/sm/ya