Delhi High Court
CM(M)/1922/2026 of ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURNCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs MUKHTIYAR SINGH on 1 September 2026
& CM APPL. 58901/2026 1/3 $~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010410312026 + CM(M) 1922/2026 & CM APPL. 58901/2026 ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain, Ms. Tanya Jindal, Advocates.
$~50
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010410312026
+
CM(M) 1922/2026 & CM APPL. 58901/2026
ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Ms. Shruti Jain, Ms.
Tanya Jindal, Advocates.
versus
MUKHTIYAR SINGH
.....Respondent
Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
01.09.2026
1. This Petition has been filed assailing impugned order dated 02nd June 2026, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [‘MACT/Tribunal’] in DAR No.991/2017 [‘impugned order’].
2. Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel for petitioner/Insurance Company, contends that a claim is being made by the claimants, for grant of compensation on basis of the income, which was received by the deceased/Sachin, from abroad.
3. In this regard, he contends that the issue of whether said income was disclosed before the Income Tax Department, and whether it was being subjected to tax, is relevant for the purposes of determining if the same shall be considered as a part of his benchmark/notional income, while computing compensation.
4. Mr. Pankaj Seth, counsel for petitioner/Insurance Company, further states, that since that the aforesaid aspect was not clear, petitioner/Insurance Company had moved an application for summoning the Income Tax Officer; however, said application was dismissed by the MACT, vide impugned order, on the basis that the MACT only needs to determine if the said amounts were received, which is evident from the bank account statements.
5. In these facts and circumstances, it is directed that, in the event, the MACT considers the amount received by the deceased/Sachin, from abroad, as part of his notional/benchmark income, it shall be incumbent upon the MACT to summon the concerned Income Tax Officer, in order to ascertain whether the said income was declared by the deceased/Sachin, and therefore, taxed under the applicable laws and regulations.
6. The contention raised by petitioner/Insurance Company herein, is that only the taxable income ought to be considered for the purposes of determining compensation, and not the mere receipt of amounts from abroad without the same being declared as ‘income’.
7. Accordingly, considering that final arguments are slated before the MACT for tomorrow, the MACT would take note of the above, and in the event, that the amounts received by the deceased/Sachin from abroad are being considered as ‘income’ for the purpose of calculating compensation, the MACT shall be duty bound to summon the concerned Income Tax Officer, in terms of the prayer of petitioner/Insurance Company in the application.
8. However, if said amounts are not being considered as ‘income’, the matter shall proceed ahead without any impediment.
9. Petition is disposed of in above terms.
10. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.
11. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
12. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/ak/ya