Sunil vs Maya & Ors.

SUNIL vs Maya & Ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 15, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1269209

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1269209
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal
Decided On: Jan 15, 2026
Case Number: MAC.APP./430/2022
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SUNIL

Advocate Mr. Omkar Kushwaha, Mr. Yogesh Pachauri

Respondent

Maya & Ors.

Advocate Mr. Ravi Sabharwal, Mr. Vivan Garg

Excerpt

.....this appeal has been filed assailing impugned award dated 05 thaugust 2022 passed by motor accidents claims tribunal (‘mact’), north district, rohini courts in case titled ‘maya & ors. v. arvind kumar & ors.’ in macp no.452/2018. appellant/owner of offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the recovery rights, which were granted against them by the mact.2. mact’s finding in this regard is contained in paragraph 32 of impugned award, which is extracted as under:3. as per the right to information (‘rti’), application moved beforeroad transport authority, rohtak, haryana, responses have been received which seem to affirm that appellant/owner indeed had a valid permit while entering the state of haryana.4. it is an admitted position that the offending vehicle already had a valid permit issued by the delhi government. the only issue is, whether it was applying with a valid permit when it was entering the state of haryana.5. it is also an admitted position that the amount had been deposited,which was required by the state of haryana and checkpost receipt was issued for the period 09th april 2018 till 30th june 2018. the accident occurred on 23rd june 2018 and, therefore, the permit would have been valid.6. an additional issue arose, whether the checkpost receipt would amount to a valid permit, to which question, responses received in the rti, are tabulated as under:7. in view of the same, finding recorded by impugned award needs to be set aside.8. right of recovery, as held against appellant/owner, in para 32, extracted above, will therefore, not subsist.9. accordingly, the appeal is allowed and is disposed of in the above terms.10. pending applications, if any, are also disposed of as being rendered infructuous.11. order be uploaded on the website of this court. anish dayal, j january 15, 2026/mk/sp

Full Judgment

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 430/2022 & CM APPL. 55782/2022 SUNIL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Omkar Kushwaha and Mr. Yogesh Pachauri, Advs.
versus
MAYA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Sabharwal and Mr. Vivan Garg, Advs. for Insurance Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

ORDER

% 15.01.2026

1. This appeal has been filed assailing impugned award dated 05 th

August 2022 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’), North District, Rohini Courts in case titled ‘Maya & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar & Ors.’ in MACP No.452/2018. Appellant/Owner of offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the recovery rights, which were granted against them by the MACT.

2. MACT’s finding in this regard is contained in paragraph 32 of impugned award, which is extracted as under:

3. As per the Right to Information (‘RTI’), application moved before

Road Transport Authority, Rohtak, Haryana, responses have been received which seem to affirm that appellant/owner indeed had a valid permit while entering the State of Haryana.

4. It is an admitted position that the offending vehicle already had a valid permit issued by the Delhi Government. The only issue is, whether it was applying with a valid permit when it was entering the State of Haryana.

5. It is also an admitted position that the amount had been deposited,

which was required by the State of Haryana and checkpost receipt was issued for the period 09th April 2018 till 30th June 2018. The accident occurred on 23rd June 2018 and, therefore, the permit would have been valid.

6. An additional issue arose, whether the checkpost receipt would amount to a valid permit, to which question, responses received in the RTI, are tabulated as under:

7. In view of the same, finding recorded by impugned award needs to be set aside.

8. Right of recovery, as held against appellant/owner, in para 32, extracted above, will therefore, not subsist.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and is disposed of in the above terms.

10. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of as being rendered infructuous.

11. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J JANUARY 15, 2026/MK/sp

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2026 Same Parties SUNIL vs Maya & Ors. Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal