Manju & Anr. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Manju & Anr. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company against respondent no.3 (owner of the offending vehicle) shall not subsist any further; Review Petition 42/2022 allowed to that extent and disposed of; delay of 1458 days condoned (CM APPL. 69094/2025); pending applications rendered infructuous.

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery rights granted to the Insurance Company against respondent no.3 (owner of the offending vehicle) should continue to subsist, given that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had been duly validated and verified.

Court's answer

Counsel for the Insurance Company agreed that the driving licence, fitness and permit of the vehicle stood duly verified, the Company having employed an Investigator who had verified the same.

Ratio / Principle

Delay of 1458 days in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

Key takeaways

The recovery rights against respondent no.3 shall not subsist any further; the Review Petition is allowed to that extent.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anish Dayal, J.), order dated 13.03.2026, disposing of Review Pet. 42/2022 (Manju & Anr v. Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr), arising from MAC.APP. 1121/2017. Delay of 1458 days in filing the Review Petition condoned (CM APPL. 69094/2025). Background: by judgment dated 22nd March 2018 the claimants' appeal had been allowed and the award enhanced from Rs.8,14,564/- to Rs.13,23,365/- with interest at 9% per annum, recovery rights having been conferred on the Insurance Company against respondent no.3 (owner of the offending vehicle). The Review Petition sought exoneration of the driver/owner from such recovery on the ground that the driver's licence had been duly validated and verified. Counsel for the appellants/review petitioner asserted that the driving licence, fitness and permit of the vehicle were duly verified; counsel for the Insurance Company agreed, stating the Company had employed an Investigator who verified the same. The Review Petition was allowed to the extent that the recovery rights against respondent no.3 shall not subsist any further; the Review Petition stands disposed of and pending applications are rendered infructuous.

$~10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- MAC.APP. 1121/2017

MANJU & ANR

.....Appellants

Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. (through VC)

versus

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv. (through VC).

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 13.03.2026

CM APPL. 69094/2025 ( condonation of delay in filing )

This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1458 days in filing the present Review Petition.

In view of the facts and circumstances stated in the application, delay is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 42/2022

By judgment dated 22^nd March 2018, the appeal filed by the claimant and was allowed by this Court and the award amount was enhanced from Rs.8,14,564 /- to Rs.13,23,365 /- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

Since recovery rights had been given to Insurance Company against respondent no.3 ( owner of the offending vehicle ), a Review Petition

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 19/03/2026 at 13:14:36

No.42/2022 was filed for exonerating the driver/owner for the recovery on the ground that the license of the driver of the offending vehicle had duly been validated and verified.

It is stated in the application and asserted by Mr. Sameer Nandwani , Advocate appearing on behalf of applicant/review petitioner, that the driving license, fitness and permit of the vehicle was duly verified.

This is agreed to by Mr. A.K. Soni , Advocate, who states that Insurance Company employed an Investigator, who had verified the same.

Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed to the extent that the recovery rights against respondent no.3 would not subsist any further.

Review Petition stands disposed of.

Pending applications are rendered infructuous.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J

MARCH 13, 2026/ ak/bp

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 19/03/2026 at 13:14:36