Disposed

M/S Surjeet Autombiles v. Umesh & Ors.

Delhi HC24 Feb 2026MAC.APP./1024/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident appeal challenging a MACT award that held the appellant liable as vehicle owner. The High Court found the registered owner was Sanjay Kumar, not the appellant, whose role was limited to an earlier hypothecation removed in 2003. It remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh determination.

What did the court decide?

Appeals remanded to MACT for proper determination within six months; deposited amounts retained subject to further orders with liberty to withdraw after proceedings.

M/S Surjeet Autombiles Vs Umesh & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$ ~ 87 & 88

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

% Date of decision: 24^th February 2026

¶4

(87) + MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & CM APPL. 48308/2018, CM APPL. 48310/2018 M/S SURJEET AUTOMBILES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Dhingra, Mr. Nishant Kumar, Ms. Shalini Dhingra, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UMESH & ORS .....Respondents Through: None.

¶7

(88)

¶8

- MAC.APP. 1064/2018 & CM APPL. 49931/2018, CM APPL.

¶9

1491/2023

¶10

M/S SURJEET AUTOMBOILES .....Appellant Through: Mr. Pradeep Dhingra, Mr. Nishant Kumar, Ms. Shalini Dhingra, Advocates. versus

¶11

UMESH & ORS .....Respondents

¶12

Through: None. CORAM:

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

ANISH DAYAL, J (ORAL)

¶16

This appeal has been preferred by M/s Surjeet Automobiles

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 1 of 9 Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶18

through its proprietor [ appellant herein ], assailing the award dated 10^th July 2015, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North East, Karardooma Courts (8 MACT 9) in DAR No. 320/2010 titled as < Nadeem & Anr. v. Umesh & Ors” .

¶19

Mr. Pradeep Dhingra , counsel appearing on behalf of appellant, states that MACT proceeded on an erroneous basis by impleading appellant/ M/s Surjeet Automobiles as the owner of the vehicle, arrayed as respondent no.2 before the MACT.

¶20

On 17^th May 2013, the MACT recorded that respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte, whereas the Investigating Officer [ IO ] reported that respondent no.3/registered owner was not traceable.

¶21

Aside from that, in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, it is mentioned that appellant [ respondent no.2 before the MACT ], was the owner of the offending vehicle and had not participated in the trial despite service and was held as jointly liable to pay compensation along with respondent no.1, who was the driver.

¶22

Mr. Dhingra contends that Registration Certificate, appended as Annexure-A6 to this appeal and forming part of the Trial Court Record [ TCR ] at page 130 , shows that the name of the registered owner was Sanjay Kumar; the financer details were mentioned as Sanjay Finance ; and the proprietor of the appellant is Sanjay Narula.

¶23

On this basis, it was assumed that financer was owner of the vehicle and was proceeded against.

¶24

He further states that the loan was prepaid in year 2000 itself and

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶27

MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 2 of 9

¶28

an No Objection Certificate [< NOC =] had already been issued by the financer/appellant, and, therefore, in any case, no liability can be fastened upon them.

¶29

A copy of the NOC has been placed on record, which the Court has perused. As per the said documents, Sanjay Finance Company through its proprietor has stated that it has received the dues regarding vehicle no. 8 DL-1LD-5510 9 from Sanjay Kumar and has no objection if the entries regarding hypothecation are cancelled in the Registration Certificate. The NOC dated 3^rd April 2003 is extracted below for ready reference:

¶30

Registration details have also been provided by the appellant, which show that the owner of vehicle is Sanjay Kumar and that no hypothecation exists in the name of Sanjay Finance Company or M/s Surjeet Automobiles , which is also extracted herein:

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶33

MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 3 of 9

¶34

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 4 of 9 Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶35

Further, the receipt, signed by Sanjay Kumar on 3^rd April 2003 states that an NOC has been obtained from Sanjay Finance Company . Same is also extracted as under:

¶36

In this regard, Form 35 , which is a notice for termination of an agreement of hire purchase/lease/hypothecation, dated 3^rd April 2003, singed by the proprietor of the Sanjay Finance Company , has also been placed on record.

¶37

Mr. Dhingra draws attention to the fact that the DAR mentioned the name of the owner of vehicle as Sanjay Kumar and nowhere Sanjay Finance Company, or M/s Surjeet Automobiles, or Mr. Sanjay Narula ( the proprietor ) were mentioned. The same was the position in the police report.

¶38

It appears that the MACT issued notice to M/s Surjeet Automobiles

¶39

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶40

MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 5 of 9

¶41

of which the proprietor is Mr. Sanjay Narula , who also runs Sanjay Finance Company , basis the statement made by the driver of the offending vehicle on 23^rd October 2010. The Investigating Officer [IO] was then directed to produce the actual owner of the offending vehicle. On 25^th May 2011, the Investigating Officer [IO] stated that Sanjay Kumar was the registered owner of the offending vehicle, though his address was not traceable. The driver stated that he had taken the vehicle from M/s Surjeet Automobiles to drive the same. Accordingly, M/s Surjeet Automobiles and Sanjay Kumar were impleaded as respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively.

¶42

Counsel appeared on behalf of M/s Surjeet Automobiles and made the statement that they were not the owners of the offending vehicle; however, they were proceeded ex parte by order dated 23^rd December 2011. Issues were framed on 16^th March 2012. Issues were only restricted to whether the deceased died due to injuries sustained in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. < DL-1LD-5510 = by respondent Umesh and whether claimants were entitled to compensation; if so, to what amount and from whom.

¶43

Thereafter, on 6^th November 2012, a statement was made by Mr. Deepak Chaudhary , who was working as a 8Sales Manager9 with respondent no.2, stating that respondent no.2/ M/s Surjeet Automobiles was a partnership firm of Mr. Man Mohan Singh and Mr. Sanjay Narula and that Mr. Sanjay Narula was residing at Shalimar Bagh, Delhi ; however, he was not in a position to present the details. Directions for the

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶46

MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 6 of 9

¶47

appearance of Mr. Sanjay Narula were given on the same day. Thereafter, attempts were made for respondent no.2 to appear, but on 17^th May 2013, respondent no.2 was proceeded ex parte .

¶48

Analysis

¶49

In conspectus of the above facts, it appears that the hypothecation of the vehicle had been removed on 3^rd April 2003 and, therefore, on the date of the accident i.e. 17^th July 2010, there was no role of Sanjay Finance Company or, in fact, M/s Surjeet Automobiles .

¶50

Mr. Pradeep Dhingra , counsel for appellant/ M/s Surjeet Automobiles , states on instructions that M/s Surjeet Automobiles is a sole proprietorship of Mr. Sanjay Narula and only their sticker was affixed on the car since there had been a previous hypothecation; the MACT simply roped in M/s Surjeet Automobiles as the owner of the vehicle [respondent no.2], basis the bare statement of the driver.

¶51

Clearly, it appears that the MACT has been amiss in considering M/s Surjeet Automobiles as the owner of the vehicle without any material being placed on record substantiating the same. The MACT also recorded in paragraph 2 of the impugned award that respondent no.3/ Sanjay Kumar is the registered owner of the vehicle and that his address is not traceable. In view of the same, fastening liability on M/s Surjeet Automobiles / Sanjay Narula cannot be sustained and, therefore, the matter is being remanded back to the MACT to consider these aspects.

¶52

In this view of the matter, it would be necessary to secure the

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶55

MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 7 of 9

¶56

presence of Mr. Sanjay Kumar [ registered owner of the vehicle ] and that of Mr. Umesh [ driver ]. Despite repeated attempts to locate the address of respondent no.2/ Mr. Sanjay Kumar , he has not been served. Substituted service was effected by publication in the newspaper.

¶57

Considering that FIR No.130/2010 was registered at Police Station Welcome for the offences under Sections 279/337/304A and 427 of Indian Penal Code 1860 [IPC] against the driver of the offending vehicle, it would be apposite to explore that route to find out as to whether anybody is appearing in the criminal proceedings which may be pending before the Trial Courts.

¶58

The MACT may call the Investigating Officer [ IO ] so that he can apprise the Court of the status of the criminal proceedings and whether any parties have been appearing in the said proceedings.

¶59

For aforesaid reasons, this Court deems it apposite to direct that the matter be remanded back to the MACT for proper determination taking into account on the circumstances as pleaded by the parties, requisitioning further documentation as may be necessary, or witnesses, if so required.

¶60

List the matter before the MACT on 18^th March 2026. 24. The MACT shall examine the matter within a period of six months from 18^th March 2026.

¶61

The amount which has been deposited by the appellant before this Court, pursuant to order dated 20^th November 2018, will be retained for the time being, subject to further orders of the Court.

¶62

Signature Not Verified

¶63

Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

¶64

MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 8 of 9

¶65

Though the Court has already recorded its observations regarding Sanjay Narula/ Sanjay Finance Company , subsequent to the further proceedings before the MACT, liberty shall be granted to the appellant to withdraw the amounts from this Court along with accrued interest.

¶66

Accordingly, the appeals stand disposed of.

¶67

Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶68

Statutory deposit (if any) shall be returned to the appellant.

¶69

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶70

ANISH DAYAL

¶71

(JUDGE)

¶72

FEBRUARY 24, 2026 / ak/tk

¶73

Signature Not Verified

¶74

Digitally Signed By:MANISH KUMAR MAC.APP. 1024/2018 & MAC.APP. 1064/2018 Page 9 of 9 Signing Da te:2 7.02.2026 12:22:52

M/S Surjeet Autombiles v. Umesh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Surjeet Autombiles v. Umesh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Sobhana & Ors.

Virender Vs Ravi & Ors. (M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)

Jamshed Alam Vs Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S Surjeet Automboiles Vs Umesh & Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Raju Chettri & Ors.

Dr Tushar Gupta Vs Randhir Singh & Ors. (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. )