Allowed

Sukhjan Bibi & Ors. v. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Sept 2026CM(M)/1984/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, on a petition regarding a 10-year-old motor accident case pending before the MACT, expressed shock at the insurance company's sporadic and inadequate presence over the last two years. Ordering the Tribunal to conclude hearing by 30 October 2026, the Court directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs for the petitioners' repeated appearances against unrepresented respondent counsel.

What did the court decide?

The MACT to conclude the hearing on or before 30th October 2026; Respondent No. 1 to pay Rs. 50,000 as costs to Petitioners within 2 weeks.

Sukhjan Bibi & Ors. Vs Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010425482026

¶4

- CM(M) 1984/2026&CM APPL. 60988/2026

¶5

SUKHJAN BIBI & ORS. .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

RELIANCE GENERAL INS. CO. LTD. & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate for R-1.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶11

O R D E R % 09.09.2026

¶12

This petition has been filed seeking directions for the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [‘ MACT/Tribunal ’] to expeditiously conclude the matter, since the accident occurred on 18^th October 2014 and the final arguments are yet to be completed.

¶13

Mr. Anshuman Bal , counsel for petitioners/claimants, states that the matter has been pending for completion of final arguments since the last two years.

¶14

The case was fixed for final arguments on 24^th July 2024 and has since been listed on various dates i.e. 02^nd September 2024, 21^st October 2024, 09^th December 2024, 13^th February 2025, 09^th April 2025, 23^rd May 2025, 29^th July 2025, 22^nd September 2025, 10^th November 2025, 20^th January 2026, 02^nd March 2026, 07^th April 2026, 23^rd April 2026, 20^th May

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 16/09/2026 at 11:23:29

¶17

2026, 28^th July 2026 and 19^th August 2026. However, final arguments have not been heard.

¶18

Court has perused the various orders passed by the Tribunal from 24^th July 2024 and it transpires that in almost all the order sheets, it has been noted that there was no appearance for respondent no.1/Insurance Company, except, when, Mr. Sujit Jaiswal, Advocate appeared on 21^st October 2024 and 10^th November 2025. Proxy counsel on behalf of respondent no.1/Insurance Company had appeared on 02^nd September 2024 and 14^th March 2026. 5. There was no appearance on behalf of Insurance Company on 24^th July 2024, 09^th December 2024, 13^th February 2025, 09^th April 2025, 23^rd May 2025, 29^th July 2025, 20^th January 2026, 07^th April 2026, 23^rd April 2026, 20^th May 2026, 28^th July 2026 and 19^th August 2026. 6. Mr. Rajeev Roy , counsel for respondent no.1/Insurance Company, states the matter was partly heard by MACT yesterday and counsel for Insurance Company had appeared. 7. It is absolutely astounding that the Insurance Company chooses to be unrepresented before the MACT. The counsel for Insurance Company has appeared only once or twice, that too sporadically in the last 2 years, while the claimants anxiously await conclusion of their matter before MACT for last many years, having staked their claim for compensation since 2014, when the accident had occurred.

¶19

Mr. Rajeev Roy , states that the delay has also caused them harm since they have to pay interest. This can hardly be a justification for complete lack of diligence in being represented before the MACT. There is no excuse for Insurance Companies not to be represented through counsel

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 16/09/2026 at 11:23:29

¶22

before MACT, considering that this is the jurisdiction where Insurance Companies are expected to appear almost every day, if not every day.

¶23

In order to apprise the management of respondent no.1/Insurance Company, a copy of this order be sent to respondent no. 1/Insurance Company for their record. The Insurance Company ought to have some oversight with regard to diligence in their representation before the courts/MACT.

¶24

In any case, Mr. Rajeev Roy , counsel for Insurance Company, has taken note of the order and is expected to apprise the senior management of the Insurance Company. 11. Considering that the petitioners/claimants had to be represented before the MACT, on many dates, through their counsel and had to incur legal costs, and the Insurance Company’s counsel did not appear (on as many as 12 dates), it is only fair and just that costs of Rs. 50,000/- be paid by respondent no.1/Insurance Company to petitioners/claimants. The said costs will be paid within 2 weeks from today and proof of the same will be furnished before the MACT.

¶25

MACT will finalize the hearing in the matter and conclude the matter on or before 30^th October 2026. 13. Petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶26

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶27

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶28

SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/RK/ sp

¶29

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 16/09/2026 at 11:23:29

Sukhjan Bibi & Ors. v. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjan Bibi & Ors. v. Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepika Chauhan Vs Lokender Singh & Ors.

Lt. Col Raj Kumar Vs Sh. Ram Kumar Aggarwal

Saurabh Suneja Vs Meenakshi Arora

Shaveta Handa and Ors. Vs Gaganjit Singh

Raj Kumar Goyal Vs Anil Gupta

Vijay Gupta Vs Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors.

M/S Dazzling Drinks Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Omsons Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Sh Sunil Kathuria Vs Sh Maninder Singh & Anr.