In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court by a Hyundai agency to assail a judgment and award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (MACT), whereby compensation of Rs. 13,92,173/- along with interest at 9% per annum was awarded, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anish Dayal refused to pass any further directions in terms of compensation while noting the agency’s will to pay 50% of the awarded compensation.
The legal representatives of the deceased had filed a claim for his death in an accident wherein the offending vehicle was a Santro car registered in the name of respondent 6, and driven by respondent 5. It transpired in the proceedings that respondent 5 had been told to drive the offending vehicle by the appellant and respondent 6 claimed that he had sold the vehicle to the appellant in exchange of another vehicle on 18-02-2014.
MACT concluded that the appellant had failed to prove the transaction of sale of the offending vehicle to respondent 5 even though the sale order and delivery receipt had been placed on record. Hence, it was held that respondent 5, being the ultimate purchaser, was liable in his capacity as the driver and principal tortfeasor. The appellant was also held to be jointly liable in its capacity as the purchaser and possessor of the offending vehicle.
Respondent 5 filed a separate appeal and during its proceedings, entered into a settlement for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- i.e., approximately 50% of the awarded compensation. Hence, the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 12-11-2025.
The appellant agency had taken the offending vehicle from respondent 6 on 18-02-2014 and gave an adjustment of Rs. 30,000/- towards purchase of a new car. The registration of the vehicle was valid from 29-01-1999 to 28-01-2014, and the Transport Department Officer deposed that the offending vehicle continued to be registered in the name of respondent 6 at the time of the accident.
The Court perused the registration certificate and found that the registration expired on 28-01-2014. It was found surprising that during the exchange process, the agency did not notice that the RC had already expired and the Court stated that it was unbelievable that a responsible car company such as Hyundai agency did not check the RC before taking possession of the vehicle. Hence, the Court attributed the knowledge of the expired RC to the appellant.
The Court stated that it was the agency’s responsibility to ensure that either the registration was renewed or alternatively that the offending vehicle was not plied on the roads. Noting the agency’s managing director’s testimony, it was found that they had sold the offending vehicle to respondent 5. However, the Court opined that the story did not fit as discrepancies were also found in respondent 5’s signatures on the sale order as well as delivery receipt.
The Hyundai agency stated that they were willing to pay their share amounting to 50% of the awarded compensation and hence, the appellant was directed to do so along with interest at 9% per annum. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
