[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Baby Alisha & Ors vs Amin Ahmad & Ors on 1 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14th January 2026
Pronounced on: 01st April 2026
Uploaded on: 02nd April 2026
+ MAC.APP. 1089/2017
BABY ALISHA & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
AMIN AHMAD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: R-1 in person.
Mr. Chandan Kumar Singh, Mr.
Rajender Kumar, Advocates for R-2
Mr. Mayank Gupta, Mr. Ashutosh
Mahendrou, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal assails impugned award dated 13th February 2017 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
["Tribunal"], in Detailed Accident Report No.14926/2015 ["DAR"],
whereby the claim petition was dismissed. The appeal has been filed by
claimants namely Baby Alisha [appellant no.1] and Baby Falak [appellant
no.2], who are minor Legal Representatives ["LRs"] of deceased Gulzar and
are represented through their grandmother, Mrs. Ayisha Bano [appellant
no.3].
The Incident
2. On 30th November 2011, at about 8:00 AM, near Muskan Restaurant
at 65 Foot-road, Jheel Park, Welcome, Delhi, one Gulzar was injured and
was removed to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital ['GTB Hospital'], Dilshad
Garden, Delhi vide Medico- Legal Case Report ['MLC'] No. C 6776/11.
Gulzar suffered grievous injuries. The offending vehicle was a Scooter
Activa Honda bearing registration bearing no. DL 8S AR 0163. The driver
was noted as Amin Ahmad, respondent no.1 herein. The vehicle was
uninsured and respondent no.2, Ram Avtar, was found to be owner of the
offending vehicle.
3. DAR was filed and registered as claim petition. Respondent
no.1/driver was found to be a juvenile. Gulzar thereafter expired and his LRs
were brought on record.
4. Respondent no.1/driver, represented through his natural guardian (his
father), denied his involvement in the alleged accident or that he was driving
the offending vehicle. He claimed that he was standing at the spot and was
falsely implicated in the case by the police. It was further claimed that death
of Gulzar was natural. Deceased Gulzar was discharged from the hospital
on the same day and no record was filed regarding his previous injuries.
Respondent no.2/owner did not file any reply and was proceeded ex-parte.
Impugned Award
5. After framing of issues, evidence was led on behalf of petitioners,
wherein Hikmat Ullah, father of Gulzar was examined as PW-1; Dr. Sanjay
Kumar, Senior Resident Neurosurgery, GTB Hospital was examined as PW-
2; Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, Chief Medical Officer ["CMO"], GTB Hospital,
was examined as PW-3; and Aiysha Bano, mother of deceased Gulzar was
examined as PW-4. On behalf of respondents, evidence was led by
respondent no.2/owner.
6. While assessing issue no.1, namely, whether deceased Gulzar died on
account of injuries sustained in the accident, in the impugned award in
paragraphs 10 to 13, it was noted by the Tribunal that injured was not
examined and had died during the proceedings and never appeared before
the Court. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
"10 To succeed in the claim petition in view of section
166 of the MV Act, it is for the claimant to prove that
vehicle which caused the accident was being driven
rashly and negligently by its driver. The petitioner
/injured in this case has not been examined and died
during the proceedings as stated. In fact the
injured/deceased never appeared in the Court during
the proceedings. The testimony recorded on behalf of
the petitioner has already been recorded. PW4 mother
of the petitioner deposed that Gulzar died on 26.03.12
due to the accident caused on 30.11.2011. She is not the
eye witness of the accident. PW2 as stated did not
support the claim of the petitioner and the reason of
death of deceased Gulzar being accident is not proved
on record at all as no postmortem is placed on record.
In fact the postmortem of Gulzar was not conducted. The
medical records regarding even his injury from road
accident is not proved in view of the testimony of PW2
and PW3. It worth to note that even in this case FIR was
not registered though it is claimed that it resulted in
grievous injury and subsequently the death of Gulzar.
The reason for non registration of FIR is not explained
at all till today along with not conducting the
postmortem on Gulzar when the accident was caused his
death. In view of the testimony of PW-2 & 3, there is
nothing to come to the conclusion that the Deceased
Gulzar died due to the injury of the accident. There is no
corroborative evidence on the record in this aspect.
.........
13. In the case in hand, there is nothing on record like
criminal record to show the negligence of respondent
no. 1. In fact the petitioner failed to prove any accident
causing injury and subsequent death of Gulzar. The non
registration of FIR, absence of criminal records, non
proving of the MLC or medical records, absence of
postmortem report to prove the cause of death of Gulzar
etc. cast shadow on the claim of the petitioner.
Therefore, in view of the material on records and
testimony of witnesses, this Court is of the considered
view that the petitioner has failed to prove that deceased
Gulzar died on account of injuries sustained in accident
taking place on 30.11.2011 at about 8.00 am at 65 foota
road, near Muskan Restaurant, near Jheel Park,
Welcome Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Welcome
due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing
no.DL 8SAR 0163 by respondent no.1 . The issue no.1 is
decided accordingly against the petitioner."
(emphasis added)
7. PW-4, mother of the Deceased, deposed that Gulzar died due to
accident, but she was not an eyewitness. PW-2's [Dr. Sanjay Kumar]
testimony did not support the claim of petitioners since there was no post-
mortem report on record to prove that the accident was the cause of death.
8. Medical records regarding injury from road accident were not proved.
No FIR was registered and it was noted that non-registration of FIR was also
not explained. No witness was examined on behalf of claimants as to how
accident occurred due to negligence of respondent no.1/driver. Death of
Gulzar took place about four months after the accident.
9. Placing reliance on decision of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Pushpa Rana (2009) ACJ 287 and Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation and Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 530, the Tribunal came to
conclusion that claimants had failed to prove any accident causing injuries
and subsequent death of Gulzar. Accordingly, no compensation was awarded
and petition was dismissed.
Submissions
10. Mr. Shekhar Aggarwal, counsel for claimants, did not dispute the fact
that there was no FIR, no criminal case was filed and no explanation given
for non-registration of the FIR. However, the following aspects were
highlighted:
i) DAR [Exhibit PW-1/8], was duly registered; details of
offending vehicle, its driver and owner were all provided therein. It was
also noted that the nature of injuries was grievous.
ii) Site plan [Annexure P-8], which form part of the Trial Court
Record ["TCR"] showed the site of accident and that Constable
Kuldeep, Police Station Welcome, was an eyewitness. MLC No. C
6776/11 dated 30th November 2011 [Exhibit Mark B], was also part of
record which noted that injured Gulzar was brought by Parveen and
that the accident occurred on 30th November 2011 at around 8:00 A.M.
at Keshav Chowk, as stated by the deceased Gulzar. Injuries noted were
essentially swelling over occipital region of the scalp.
iii) Chargesheet was also filed, which noted the date of birth of
respondent no.1/driver as 10th February 1998, and therefore, he would
be a juvenile as on date of accident. Chargesheet stated that when
Constable Kuldeep went to site of accident, the Scooter Activa Honda
was found standing at the site and respondent no.1/driver was found
nearby. It was also noted that people present at the site, inter alia
Pramod, S/o Kesav R/o Welcome Seelampur, Delhi, stated that
respondent no.1/ driver was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent
manner and had injured deceased Gulzar.
iv) As per chargesheet, statement of respondent no.1/driver was
recorded, wherein he confessed and stated that at the time of accident,
he was driving the scooter and Pradeep, S/o Ram Avtar [respondent
no.2 herein], was with him as pillion rider. Respondent no.1/Ameen
Ahmad was arrested and a Social Investigation Report of Juvenile in
conflict with law was prepared. Since he was also injured, his MLC was
recorded. It was stated that respondent no.1/Ameen Ahmad was without
a driving license ["DL"] and had caused injuries to the deceased Gulzar
by rash and negligent driving, punishable under Sections 279/337 of the
Indian Penal Code 1860 [IPC]. Statement of deceased Gulzar was
recorded, wherein he stated that he was going towards Noida Factory
from his house and when he reached near Muskan Restaurant, a child
driving a scooter in a rash and negligent manner hit him, due to which
he fell down and sustained injuries.
v) Death Certificate of Gulzar [Exhibit PW-1/6] shows that
Gulzar passed away on 26th March 2012. As regards his stay in hospital,
the testimony of PW-2 [Dr. Sanjay] was relied upon, who stated that he
was not the treating doctor but as per records i.e. the MLC, the patient
was suffering from swelling over the occipital region of the scalp, and
had registered loss of consciousness on reaching GTB Hospital. The
Non-Contrast Computed Tomography [NCCT] report revealed left
frontal contusion, managed conservatively. Patient/Gulzar was
discharged after three days of admission on 3rd December 2011. At the
time of discharge, the patient/Gulzar was in a satisfactory condition,
and was fully conscious and was advised regular follow-up in
neurosurgery along with oral medication.
vi) He further stated that as per the Death Certificate [Exhibit
PW-1/5], cause of death was "intracerebral haemorrhage with
intraventricular extension with midline shift", but he could not give a
final opinion in the absence of a post mortem report. In his cross-
examination, he confirmed that at the time of discharge, Gulzar was
medically fit. Post-mortem was not conducted in a natural death and,
therefore, no such record exists.
vii) Testimony of PW-3 [Dr. Parmeshwar Ram] was relied upon,
who was a CMO at GTB Hospital and confirmed that patient was
discharged on 3rd December 2011 as his condition was satisfactory. In
response to a Court's query, he stated that it was not as if patient did not
require any further treatment, but he could have continued as OPD
patient. At the time of discharge, it was felt the patient did not require
further hospitalization. He further stated that as per record, the patient
again visited the casualty department on 08th December 2011, was
referred to the Neurotrauma Ward for the emergency, was examined,
prescribed medicines and sent home. The ENT department also
examined the patient on 08th December 2011, and again on 19th
December 2011, and an audiometric test was conducted.
viii) As per the Death Certificate [Exhibit PW-1/5], deceased
Gulzar was admitted on 22nd March 2012 and died on 26th March 2012,
due to intracerebral haemorrhage with IV extension, meaning thereby
internal bleeding in the brain. Responding to a Court's query as to
whether this bleeding could be connected with the injuries sustained in
the accident, PW-3 [Dr. Parmeshwar Ram] stated that he was present
in the casualty when the patient was brought to the hospital for the first
time, but at the time of discharge on 3rd December 2011, no surgical
intervention was required. PW-3 further stated that he could not say the
reasons for admission of the patient on 22nd March 2012 as the relevant
papers were not on record.
11. Submissions were made on behalf of respondent no.1 and it was stated
that he was a juvenile and that the cause of death could not be attributed to
the accident. Reliance was placed on testimony of PW-2 [Dr. Sanjay
Kumar], who in his cross examination stated that intracerebral haemorrhage
could also occur on account of depression. It was contended that there was
no continuous treatment record, no eyewitness to the accident and that the
respondent no.1 was falsely implicated as he was merely standing at the spot.
12. Submissions on behalf of respondent no.2, owner of the offending
vehicle, were to that effect that he was not the registered owner of the
vehicle, and that Anuj Kumar Gupta [respondent no.3 herein] was the
registered owner of vehicle in question, and was, therefore, a necessary party
to the claim petition. It was stated that Anuj Kumar Gupta/respondent no.3
had prepared fake and fabricated documents relating to sale of the vehicle in
the name of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 stated that he was working
under Anuj Kumar Gupta, who was owner of the printing press, and that he
had been made to sign Form 29 by inserting a back date of 5th September
2011 at 2:30 P.M., whereas the accident took place on 30th November 2011.
Moreover, on 7th December 2011, he was made to sign an affidavit, under
influence and coercion, stating that he had purchased the vehicle, as he was
working under Anuj Kumar Gupta.
13. Relying on the notarization, respondent no.2/owner stated that the
purchase documents were clearly prepared subsequently and that a back date
had been inserted in Form 29 and in order to enable respondent no.3 to avoid
liability in the case.
14. Counsel for respondent no.2 has also made extensive submissions on
issue of cause of death of Gulzar, contending that it was unrelated to the
incident since death occurred 116 days after the date of accident and was
possibly a natural death.
15. Reliance was placed on Section 2 (30) of Motor Vehicle Act 1988
["Motor Vehicle Act"], which defines "owner" of a motor vehicle. In his
cross examination, respondent no.2/ Ram Avtar, by way of an affidavit of
evidence [Exhibit R2W1] stated that he was under employment of Anuj
Kumar Gupta/respondent no.3, who was the registered owner of the
offending vehicle.
Analysis
16. Upon assessing the evidence on record, this appears to be a peculiar
case where no FIR has been placed on record even though there is a
chargesheet; respondent no.1/driver was a juvenile at the time of incident
and has strongly contended that he was merely standing next to the scooter
when the police arrived; and the alleged owner of vehicle, respondent
no.2/Ram Avtar, has vehemently stated that he was compelled by his
employer respondent no.3/Anuj Kumar Gupta, to sign documents
transferring ownership of the vehicle.
17. None of these issues have been assessed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal
has purely, proceeded on the basis that there was no FIR and no criminal
record, and has held that the claimants failed to prove that the accident was
caused due to rash and negligent driving and that subsequent death of Gulzar
was connected to the accident. Further, the testimony of medical officers
could not conclusively establish whether the death of Gulzar actually
occurred as a foreseeable consequence of injuries sustained by him in that
accident.
18. Considering all the submissions made by parties, this Court must
assess the very core issue of the matter, which pertains to the issue of
causation. Causation, in the context of a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, requires claimants to establish a proximate and credible
nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the subsequent death
of the victim. A claim can be filed by LRs of the deceased if death has
'resulted' from the accident [Section 166 (1) (c)]. It is axiomatic, even as per
Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act, that claims can be preferred if death
is "arising out of a motor accident".
19. MACT, while returning its findings in paragraphs 10 to 13 of the
impugned award, has examined the medical evidence on record and correctly
concluded that the claimants had failed to establish a 'causal nexus' between
injuries sustained in the accident and the subsequent death of deceased
Gulzar.
20. To establish causation in the facts and circumstances of this case, the
evidence of medical officers /doctors have to be assessed carefully:
a) Dr. Sanjay Kumar, a Senior Resident in Neurosurgery at GTB
Hospital, was examined as PW-2. He stated that he was not the
treating doctor and deposed on the basis of the medical records. He
confirmed that, as per MLC, patient [deceased] had been brought to
the hospital in a case of an alleged road accident but was 'fully
conscious.' As per MLC, patient [deceased] suffered swelling over the
"occipital region" of scalp, with a history of loss of consciousness,
vomiting and ENT bleeding. A Non- Contrast Computed Tomography
[NCCT] of the head report showed 'left frontal contusion' which was
managed conservatively and patient [deceased] was discharged after
three days of admission i.e on 3rd December 2011. Notably, PW-2
states that, at the time of discharge, patient's general condition was
'satisfactory' and he was 'fully conscious', with oral medication and
advised regular follow-up in Neurosurgery OPD. He concludes by
stating that the cause of death is intracerebral haemorrhage with
intraventricular extension with midline shift, but a final decision could
not be made without a post-mortem. In his cross-examination, he
confirmed that swelling over the occipital region of the scalp 'cannot
cause death' and that, at the time of discharge, deceased Gulzar was
medically/physically fit. Considering it was a natural death, a post-
mortem was not conducted. He further stated in his cross-examination
that intracerebral haemorrhage may occur on account of depression.
From the testimony of PW-2, what can be gleaned is:
i. Firstly, that the cause of death, even though mentioned in Death
Certificate [Exhibit PW-1/5] as intracerebral haemorrhage,
could not be confirmed with complete finality, considering
there was no post-mortem, it being treated as a natural death.
Even if it was intracerebral haemorrhage, it could have been
due to other medical reasons.
ii. Secondly, deceased Gulzar was discharged after three days of
admission, being treated conservatively for left frontal
contusion and only with oral medication;
iii. Thirdly, that the swelling over occipital region of the scalp
cannot cause death;
iv. Fourthly, that at the time of discharge deceased Gulzar was
medically and physically fit.
v. The medical evidence provided by the Senior Resident Doctor
[PW-2], therefore, does not confirm the chain of causation as is
being professed by claimants. The death occurred four months
later and could have been due to some other medical issues
which deceased Gulzar was suffering from, since it is quite
clear from the doctor's evidence that the left frontal contusion
or the occipital swelling was managed satisfactorily and that
swelling of occipital region could not cause death.
b) Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, CMO of GTB Hospital, who was examined as
PW-3, testified on the basis of records and confirmed that injured
Gulzar had swelling at the back of his head/scalp and was discharged
on 3rd December 2011 in satisfactory condition. He further stated that
patient required treatment but could have continued as an OPD patient,
and that on 3rd December 2011 it was felt that the patient did not
require further hospitalization. On 08th December 2011, he again
visited the Casualty department and was again prescribed medicines
and sent home, after being examined by the doctors in Neuro-Trauma
Ward and ENT. Yet again he was examined on 19th December 2011
by ENT, and an audiometry test was conducted. Then he was finally
admitted on 22nd March 2012 and died on 26th March 2012. He
clarified that intracerebral haemorrhage meant internal bleeding in
the brain and stated that it could be connected to the injury sustained.
However, he clarified in cross-examination that his statement was on
the basis of the medical record, and he was present in the Casualty
department when patient [deceased] was brought to the hospital for
the first time, but was discharged on 03rd December 2011 as no
surgical intervention was required.
c) Even though the CMO states that the bleeding could possibly be
connected with injuries sustained, there is no expansion or
justification provided based on subsequent treatment records.
Moreover, the testimony of the Senior Resident Doctor [PW-2] is far
more categorical that due to the injury no death could occur and that
intracerebral haemorrhage could be due to other reasons. Also, there
was no other hospital visit which has been stated by PW-3, to be
between December 2011 and March 2012.
21. Evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 did not support the contention that the
intracerebral haemorrhage resulting in death on 26th March 2012 was
attributable to the accident dated 30th November 2011. It was also noted that
the deceased had been discharged from hospital in a satisfactory condition
within a few days of admission, there was no continuous treatment record
demonstrating progressive neurological complications, and no post-mortem
examination was conducted to ascertain the precise cause of death. Lapse of
approximately 116 days between the accident and the death, in absence of
supporting medical evidence bridging this interval, further weakens the
claim of proximate causation. This Court finds no infirmity in the MACT's
conclusion that the requisite nexus between the accident injuries and the
death of the deceased was not established on the standard of preponderance
of probabilities applicable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
22. It is well settled in tort jurisprudence that liability for damages extends
only to those consequences which bear a proximate and reasonably
foreseeable relationship to the negligent act. In the celebrated decision,
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. and Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd.
(The Wagon Mound), [1961] A.C. 388, the House of Lords observed that
where the eventual injury complained of is not shown to be a probable or
foreseeable consequence of the original act, the chain of causation is treated
as broken and compensation cannot be sustained on the basis of remote
consequences. For ease of reference, relevant paragraph is extracted as
under:
"Their Lordships conclude this part of the case with
some general observations. They have been concerned
primarily to displace the proposition that
unforeseeability is irrelevant if damage is "direct." In
doing so they have inevitably insisted that the essential
factor in determining liability is whether the damage is
of such a kind as the reasonable man should have
foreseen. This accords with the general view thus
stated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v. Stevenson : "The
liability for negligence, whether you style it such or
treat it as in other systems as a species of 'culpa,' is no
doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral
wrongdoing for which the offender must pay." It is a
departure from this sovereign principle if liability is
made to depend solely on the damage being the
"direct" or "natural" consequence of the precedent
act. Who knows or can be assumed to know all the
processes of nature? But if it would be wrong that a
man should be held liable for damage unpredictable by
a reasonable man because it was "direct" or
"natural," equally it would be wrong that he should
escape liability, however "indirect" the damage, if he
foresaw or could reasonably foresee the intervening
events which led to its being done: cf. Woods v.
Duncan. Thus foreseeability becomes the effective
test. In reasserting this principle their Lordships
conceive that they do not depart from, but follow and
develop, the law of negligence as laid down by Baron
Alderson in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co."
23. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, the
medical evidence on record does not establish that the intracerebral
haemorrhage which resulted in the death of Gulzar on 26th March 2012 was
a probable or foreseeable consequence of the injuries sustained in the
accident dated 30th November 2011. In these circumstances, the claimants
have failed to establish the requisite proximate causal nexus between the
accident and the subsequent death of the deceased, and finding of MACT
that compensation was not payable warrants no interference.
24. Accordingly, this Appeal stands dismissed.
25. Pending applications (if any) are rendered as infructuous.
26. Judgement be uploaded to the website of this Court.
(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 01, 2026/sm/tk
