Deepanshu Pahuja Vs Rishabh Arora & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Deepanshu Pahuja Vs Rishabh Arora & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned MACT judgment dated 12th November 2025 set aside; matter remanded to the concerned MACT to record testimony of the injured Deepanshu Pahuja (now a major) and any other independent witness, with cross-examination rights preserved for opposing parties; no opinion expressed on merits; MACT proceedings to be concluded within six months; parties to appear before the MACT on 2nd June 2026; appeal disposed of in the above terms.

Issue for consideration

Whether the MACT correctly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that neither the injured claimant nor any independent witness was examined, given the nature of proceedings before the MACT and the claimant's minority at the relevant time. +1 more

Court's answer

Proceedings before the MACT are in the nature of inquiry and not strictly adversarial litigation; the MACT overlooked this settled position in dismissing the claim for want of examination of the injured and independent witnesses.

Ratio / Principle

Examining the injured/claimant, or any other independent witness if available, was the duty of the MACT, which could have requisitioned/summoned the claimant to provide his testimony.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded back to the MACT to record the testimony of the injured Deepanshu Pahuja, who has attained the age of majority, and of any other independent witness, if available.ratio¶¶29
The right to cross-examine the witnesses will always be available to counsel for the opposing parties before the MACT.ratio¶¶29
The Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits; it is open to the MACT, upon examination of the additional evidence, to arrive at an appropriate conclusion in accordance with law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MAC.APP. 197/2026 (High Court of Delhi, Anish Dayal J, order dated 20.05.2026): Appeal by injured claimant Deepanshu Pahuja against the MACT (South West District, Dwarka Court) judgment dated 12th November 2025 dismissing his compensation claim for head injuries causing 68% permanent mental disability suffered in a car accident of 03.08.2014, in which respondent no. 1 Rishabh Arora allegedly drove the Hyundai i-20 (DL-8CAA3808) rashly and negligently (FIR No.864/2014, Sections 279/337 IPC). The Tribunal had dismissed the claim because neither the injured nor any independent witness was examined — only PW1 Smt. Gayatri Pahuja (mother) and the concerned doctor testified — relying on Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428. Held: proceedings before the MACT are in the nature of inquiry and not strictly adversarial litigation; examining, or requisitioning/summoning, the injured claimant — who was 16 years old on the date of the accident and has since attained majority — and any available independent witness was the MACT's duty. Impugned judgment set aside; matter remanded to record the testimony of the injured and any other independent witness, with cross-examination rights preserved for the opposing parties; no opinion expressed on the merits; MACT proceedings to conclude within six months; parties to appear on 2nd June 2026. The Court referred to Oriental Insurance Co. v. Sunita Singh, 2026:DHC:3190 and National Insurance co ltd v Shehnaj Begum & Ors., 2026:DHC:3169 as instructive on the conspectus of MACT proceedings and determination of negligence even in the absence of independent witnesses.

$~48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- MAC.APP. 197/2026

DEEPANSHU PAHUJA .....Appellant

Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik Singh, Advs.

versus

RISHABH ARORA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Attin Shanker Rastogi, Ms. Jigyasa Prashar & Ms. Saloni Kumar, Advs. for NIC/R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R % 20.05.2026

This appeal has been filed assailing judgment dated 12^th November 2025, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘ MACT ’), South West District, Dwarka Court, whereby the claim petition was dismissed.

The appeal relates to an accident that occurred on 03^rd August 2014, when the injured, Deepanshu Pahuja , was travelling along with his friend, Rishabh Arora , in a Hyundai i-20 car bearing registration no. DL-8CAA3808, which was being driven by Rishabh Arora (respondent no. 1) in a rash and negligent manner. Appellant had cautioned respondent no. 1/driver to drive carefully; however, the said warning was ignored and the vehicle collided with the divider near Bharti College, Janak Puri, Delhi , resulting in injuries to both occupants. Owing to the head injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant suffered permanent mental disability to the extent of 68% .

An FIR No.864/2014 was registered under Sections 279/337 of the

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 25/05/2026 at 12:31:01

Indian Penal Code, 1908, against Rishabh Arora , since he was a minor and not holding a valid and effective driving licence.

The claim petition was filed seeking compensation. Rishabh Arora and the owner of the vehicle, namely his father, Gauri Shankar Arora , have been arrayed as respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, while the Insurance Company has been arrayed as respondent no. 3.

Appellant examined two witnesses to prove their case. However, the MACT dismissed the claim on the ground that neither injured, Deepanshu Pahuja, nor any independent witness was examined. Only, PW1 / Smt. Gayatri Pahuja , the mother of the injured, and the concerned doctor were examined.

Mr. S.N. Parashar , counsel for appellant, states that since the injured/claimant was the minor at that time, the testimony was not recorded. He further submits that the claimant, Deepanshu Pahuja , has now attained the age of majority, and so has Rishabh Arora / respondent no. 1.

He accordingly submits that the matter be remanded back to the MACT to enable the parties to prove the case of negligence and to record the evidence of these witnesses, or any other witnesses, as may be necessary.

Ms. Jigyasa , counsel for Insurance Company, seeks time to take instructions in this regard. However, in the opinion of the Court, the same may not be required since perusal of the impugned award shows that in paragraph 18 , the MACT observed that neither the injured, Deepanshu Pahuj a himself, nor any independent witness had been examined to establish rash, reckless and/or negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent no. 1, Rishabh Arora .

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 428, the Tribunal has arrived

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 25/05/2026 at 12:31:01

at a conclusion that in the absence of evidence the claim would stand dismissed.

The MACT appears to have overlooked the settled position that proceedings before the MACT are in the nature of inquiry and are not strictly as adversarial litigation. During the course of the proceedings, it was evident that Deepanshu Pahuja had already attained the age of majority, he being 16 years of age on the date of the accident, i.e., 03^rd August 2014.

To examine the injured/claimant or for that matter any other independent witness, if available, was the duty of the MACT and the injured/ claimant could have been requisitioned/summoned for providing his testimony.

The conspectus of nature of proceeding before the MACT and the guideposts for considering the issue of negligence, even in absence of independent witnesses, has been considered by this Court in the decision of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Sunita Singh , 2026:DHC:3190 and National Insurance co ltd v Shehnaj Begum & Ors., 2026:DHC:3169 which may be instructive for the MACT, where previous decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court have been considered as regards the determination of issue of negligence have been considered.

In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the MACT to record the testimony of the injured, Deepanshu Pahuja , who has attained the age of majority and any other independent witness, if so available. The right to cross examine the witnesses will always be available to counsel for the opposing parties.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the concerned MACT.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

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 25/05/2026 at 12:31:01

merits of the matter, and it shall be open to the MACT, upon examination of the additional evidence, to arrive at an appropriate conclusion in accordance with law.

The proceedings before the MACT shall be concluded within a period of six months.

The parties shall appear before the MACT on 2^nd June, 2026.

Appeal stands disposed of in terms of above terms.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J

MAY 20, 2026/sm/zb

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 25/05/2026 at 12:31:01