SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Raj Kumari… — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

SBI General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt Raj Kumari… — Cheating and Forgery | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both appeals dismissed; pending applications rendered infructuous. Tribunal award of Rs. 18,97,500/- with 6% per annum interest and recovery rights against the driver and owner affirmed. Release directed: Rs. 5,00,000/- to the wife (Rajkumari) and Rs. 2,00,000/- to the married daughter (Indu Devi) by liquidating FDRs, balance retained in fixed deposits per paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned award; statutory amount to be refunded to the Insurance Company.

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery rights granted by the Tribunal to the Insurance Company against the driver and owner (driver holding a fake driving licence) can stand, and whether the owner is entitled to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage. +2 more

Court's answer

Once the Insurance Company contested the issue of the fake driving licence, the burden shifted on the owner of the offending vehicle to disprove the same or give evidence in rebuttal, which was not complied with.

Ratio / Principle

Having ignored the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC despite previously filing a written statement, the owner of the offending vehicle cannot claim the benefit of leading evidence at the appellate stage.

Key takeaways

The appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle against the recovery rights cannot be considered tenable.ratio¶34
The Tribunal's position — that the mother of the deceased, being alive on the date of the accident, is a dependent and her subsequent death during pendency makes no difference — is upheld; the Court sees no reason to displace it.ratio¶40
The compensation as granted by the MACT stands affirmed, as also the recovery rights against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anish Dayal, J.) dismisses two cross-appeals against a MACT Central, Tis Hazari award dated 27.08.2024 (MACT No. 358228/2016) of Rs. 18,97,500/- with 6% p.a. interest arising from a 16.10.2015 fatal accident in which a truck (UK-07-CA-4334) crushed a cyclist at Sant Nagar, Burari. (i) The insurer's quantum appeal, urging a one-half instead of one-third personal deduction because the deceased's mother died during the pendency of the claim, fails: placing reliance on this Court's decision in Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd v. Sh Anil Kumar Kaushik, 2026:DHC:2695, a parent alive on the date of the accident remains a dependent and her subsequent death does not alter the computation; the award and recovery rights stand affirmed. (ii) The owner's appeal against the recovery rights (driver's fake licence) also fails: the licence was indisputably fake per the IO's verification report and the insurer's witness; the owner ignored the Order XII Rule 8 CPC notice and led no rebuttal evidence despite a written statement, so no fresh evidence could be permitted at the appellate stage — the owner's reliance on IFFCO Tokio v. Geeta Devi, 2023 INSC 954, was distinguished. Directions: release Rs. 5,00,000/- to the widow and Rs. 2,00,000/- to the married daughter by liquidating FDRs, retain the balance in fixed deposits, and refund the statutory amount to the insurer.

$~18 & 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- MAC.APP. 590/2024 & CM APPL. 66739/2024 SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate (through VC).

versus

SMT RAJ KUMARI DEVI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Kumar, Adv. for R-1 and 2.

Mr. Ayushman Aeron, Advocate for R-4.

MAC.APP. 36/2025, CM APPL. 2571/2025 CM APPL. 2572/2025 DHARMENDER KUMAR BAHUGUNA .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ayushman Aeron, Advocate.

versus

RAJ KUMARI DEVI AND ORS (SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.) .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Kumar, Adv. for R-1 and 2. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate (through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R % 08.05.2026

These appeals have been filed assailing impugned award dated 27^th August 2024 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘ MACT/Tribunal ’), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MACT No. 358228/2016, where the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 18,97,500/along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

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 14/05/2026 at 12:13:24

MAC APP. 590/2024 has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the quantum of compensation on certain accounts. MAC APP. 36/2025 has been filed by the owner of offending vehicle, challenging right of recovery granted to the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver had a fake driving license.

The accident occurred on 16^th October 2015, when a PCR call reported that a truck has crushed a cyclist at Sant Nagar, Burari , and the cyclist had expired. When the Sub-Inspector (‘ SI ’) reached the spot, he saw that one cycle was lying in an accidental condition and a person was lying dead on the road whose head had been crushed. The public had caught one person, namely, Shahnawaz , the truck driver and handed him over to the police. He was driving the truck bearing registration No . UK-07-CA-4334 (hereinafter, “ offending vehicle ”) at the time of accident. Offending vehicle was parked on the roadside.

Eye-witness statement of Mr. Harsh , was recorded who stated that after the accident, the truck driver tried to flee, but the public caught him and dialed 100.

Further investigation was conducted by the ASI who requistioned a verification report with respect to driving license of the truck driver, which stated that no record of the same was found with the concerned authority. Charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to trial.

In this regard, MACT has recorded its findings in paragraph 34 to 36 of the impugned award, which is extracted as under:

“ 34. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 1 Shahnabaz, owned by respondent no. 2 Dharmender Kumar Bahuguna and insured with respondent no.3 SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer).

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 14/05/2026 at 12:13:24

35. On the point of liability, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3/ Insurance Company has submitted that respondent no. l was driving on a fake license and thus, there was a violation of the terms of insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the respondents.

36. On the other hand, respondent no.1 has not led any evidence to prove that his license was genuine. He even stopped appearing before this Tribunal and was proceeded exparte. Even respondent no. 2 did not lead any evidence to prove that he thought that the license of respondent no. 1 was genuine. On the other hand, R3W1 has proved that the license was fake. He has also proved the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC and the postal receipts and yet the respondents have not produced a license effective on the date of the accident. During investigation, the IO had found the license of respondent no. 1 to be fake and thus, the chargesheet was filed under section 420 IPC also. Therefore, considering the above, it is concluded that respondent no.1 was driving the offending vehicle on a fake license. However, since MACT proceedings are beneficial in nature, respondent no.3 is directed to pay the award amount to the petitioner and is granted recovery rights against respondent nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally .”

(emphasis added)

It has been clearly recorded by the MACT that, despite the evidence led by Insurance Company and notice being issued under Order XII Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘ CPC ’) to the driver and owner to place evidence on record, they did not appear before the MACT and the matter was proceeded ex parte .

It has also been stated clearly that, neither the driver nor the owner led any evidence to prove that the driving license was genuine.

Mr. Ayushman Aeron, counsel appearing on behalf of owner of offending vehicle, places reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in

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 14/05/2026 at 12:13:24

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd v Geeta Devi and Ors , 2023 INSC 954, wherein, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Insurance Company seeking recovery rights. The Court held that unless the driving license appears to be fake on the face of it, and despite having a chance to verify the driving license, the owner did not choose to do so, the burden shall be upon the Insurance Company to prove that the owner did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the driving license held by the driver.

On this basis, he claims that yet another opportunity should be granted to them to lead evidence at this stage and in that regard, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC has been filed. 11. There is no dispute about the fact that the driving license was indeed fake, as has been asserted in the investigation report of the IO, as well. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the owner of offending vehicle to have been prompt to place their evidence in rebuttal before the MACT. Having ignored the notice issued under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC, despite having previously filed a written statement, the owner of offending vehicle cannot claim the benefit of leading evidence at the appellate stage.

In the present circumstances, the Insurance Company having contested the issue of a fake driving license once, clearly shows that the burden shifted on the owner of offending vehicle to disprove the same or give evidence in rebuttal, which was not complied with. Therefore, the appeal filed by owner of offending vehicle cannot be considered tenable. 13. As regards the appeal filed by Insurance Company challenging the compensation awarded, the sole argument raised by Mr. Nandwani , counsel for Insurance Company, is that deductions on account of personal income

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 14/05/2026 at 12:13:24

should be taken at one-half and not 1/3^rd , considering that the mother of deceased had expired during the pendency of claim proceedings.

However, it has been contended by Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Kumar , counsel for claimants, that the mother of deceased passed away in 2021 whereas, the accident had taken place in 2015 and on the date of the accident, she was still alive and, therefore, any compensation awarded to her would ultimately become a part of her estate.

Reliance may be placed upon a decision of this Court in Iffco Tokio Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd v. Sh Anil Kumar Kaushik & Ors . 2026:DHC:2695 wherein a claim petition had been filed by parents of the deceased, however, the mother of deceased had passed away during the pendency of claim proceedings; this Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that mother would be considered a dependent, considering that she was alive when the accident took place and her subsequent death would not make a difference.

The same position has been taken by the MACT and the Court sees no reason to displace the same; accordingly, the compensation as granted by the MACT shall stand affirmed, as also the recovery rights against the driver and owner of offending vehicle.

Directions

Vide order dated 3^rd December 2024, this Court had directed the Insurance Company to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General of this Court. However, no directions were given for the release of compensation.

Considering that fatal accident occurred in 2015 and no compensation

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 14/05/2026 at 12:13:24

has been released yet even after 11 years, the following directions in respect of release of compensation amount are being passed:

i. Rs. 5,00,000/- lump sum amount will be released to wife of the deceased/ Rajkumari, by liquidating the requisite number of fixed deposit receipts (‘ FDRs ’).

ii. Rs. 2,00,000/- will be released to the married daughter/ Indu Devi by liquidating the requisite number of FDRs.

iii. Balance amount shall be retained in fixed deposits as directed in paragraph 29 and 30 of the impugned award.

In view of the above, both appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

Statutory amount be refunded to the Insurance Company.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J

MAY 8, 2026/RK/ sp

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 14/05/2026 at 12:13:24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 27 August 2024 in MACT No. 358228/2016 awarding compensation of Rs. 18,97,500/- with interest at 6% per annum, with recovery rights against driver and owner on account of the driver's fake driving licence¶13
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi · 27 August 2024
Prior proceeding
Fatal accident on 16 October 2015 at Sant Nagar, Burari: PCR call reported a truck crushing a cyclist, who expired.¶17
Prior proceeding
Public caught the truck driver Shahnawaz and handed him to police; he was driving truck UK-07-CA-4334 (the offending vehicle).¶17
Prior proceeding
ASI requisitioned a verification report of the driver's driving licence; no record of it was found with the concerned authority.¶19
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet filed and matter committed to trial.¶19
Prior proceeding
Tribunal recorded that the offending vehicle was driven by respondent no.1 Shahnabaz, owned by respondent no.2 Dharmender Kumar Bahuguna and insured with respondent no.3 SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.¶21
Prior proceeding
Before the Tribunal, the insurer contended the driver was driving on a fake licence, violating the terms of the insurance policy, so the insurer was not liable to indemnify.¶24
Prior proceeding
Insurer's witness R3W1 proved the licence fake and proved notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC with postal receipts; respondents never produced a licence effective on the accident date.¶25
Prior proceeding
Despite the insurer's evidence and the Order XII Rule 8 CPC notice, the driver and owner did not appear before the MACT and the matter proceeded ex parte.¶27
Prior proceeding
During investigation the IO found the licence fake; charge sheet was filed under section 420 IPC.¶25
Prior proceeding
Tribunal concluded the driver drove the offending vehicle on a fake licence; directed the insurer (respondent no.3) to pay the award amount to the petitioner and granted recovery rights against respondent nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.¶25
Prior proceeding
Vide order dated 3 December 2024, this Court directed the insurer to deposit the entire compensation with up-to-date interest with the Registrar General; no release directions were given.¶42