THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs BHAGULI DEVI

Reserved on: 01.10.2026
Delivered on: 29.10.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No. 553 of 2016



The New India Assurance Company Limited
--Appellant
Versus
Bhaguli Devi and others
--Respondents

Presence:-
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate for
the appellant.

Mr. K.S. Bora, Advocate for the respondents.


JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this appeal is made to the judgment
and order dated 06.08.2016 passed in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 05 of 2016, Smt. Bhaguli Devi and others v. New India
Insurance Company Ltd. and another, by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Almora (“the Tribunal”). By it, the
petition filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants under
Sections 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MV Act”)
seeking compensation on the death of Vinod Kumar Bhoj in a
motor accident has been allowed and they have been awarded
compensation of Rs. 63,70,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of
7 % per annum, and it is the appellant, who has been directed to
pay the amount of compensation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly
stated, are as follows. According to the respondent nos. 1, 2 &

2

3/claimants, the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhoj was working as a
Pharmacist in Allopathic Hospital, Naini, Jageshwar and was
drawing salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month. On 14.09.2015, the
deceased was driving the car bearing Registration No. UK 01A-
9174 (“the vehicle”) owned by his wife/respondent no. 4, to join his
duties. On that day, at about 11:00 a.m., the vehicle met with an
accident and fell in a gorge, due to which the deceased Vinod
Kumar Bhoj, who was driving the vehicle, died on spot. The
respondent no. 1 Smt. Bhaguli Devi is the mother of the deceased,
the respondent no. 2 Vansh Bhoj is the son of the deceased and
the respondent no. 3 is Km. Varnika is the daughter of the
deceased. Based on the aforesaid averments, the claim petition
was filed.
4. The appellant did file its objections and denied the
claim made by the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants. According
to them, the deceased was driving the vehicle owned by his wife,
therefore, he was neither a workman nor a third party.
Accordingly, it was objected by the appellant that the claimants are
not entitled to any compensation. There are various other
objections taken by the appellant in their written statement.
5. The respondent no. 4/wife of the deceased, who is the
owner of the vehicle also filed her objections. According to her, the
vehicle had all the valid documents on the date of incident. The
deceased had borrowed the vehicle from her. He had a valid driving
license also. According to the respondent no. 4, the onus to pay
compensation is on the appellant. Accordingly, it is objected that
the claim petition may be rejected.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, five issues were
framed, which are as follows:-

3

“1. Whether on 14.09.2015 at 11:00 a.m. the
deceased Vinod Kumar was driving the Car
No. UK 01A-9174 of his wife near
Nonasiling, Gram Sabha Falyat, which met
with an accident and fell down into gorge,
due to which Sri Vinod Kumar sustained
serious injuries and died on spot due to
serious injuries sustained by him. If so, its
effect?
2. Whether for the purposes of Insurance
Company, the deceased shall be deemed a
third party on the ground that he was
driving the vehicle of his wife?
3. Whether the deceased Vinod Kumar was
having learning licence at the time of
driving the vehicle, for which reason it
shall not be treated that he was having a
valid licence holder?
4. Whether the vehicle which met with the
accident was being driven as per the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, along
with all the valid documents and as per
the conditions of insurance policy?
5. To which relief the claimants are entitled
and from whom?”
7. On behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, total three
witnesses, namely, PW 1 Smt. Bhaguli Devi, PW 2 Gauri Shankar
and PW 3 Girjesh Kumar were examined. They have also produced
documentary evidence in support of their claim.
8. On behalf of the appellant, no oral evidence was
adduced, however, in documentary evidence, certain documents
were filed on their behalf.

4

9. On issue no. 1, the Tribunal held that at the time of
the accident, the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner, but the accident took place due to sudden
appearance of a wild animal on the road.
10. On issue no. 2, the Tribunal held that the appellant is
liable to pay the compensation. The deceased is a third party. On
issue no. 3, the Tribunal held that even if the deceased had a
learning driving licence, it shall be considered as a valid driving
licence. On issue no. 4, it was held that the vehicle had all the
valid documents at the time of accident.
11. Issue no. 5 is with regard to compensation. After
computing the amount, a total compensation of Rs. 63,70,000/-
has been awarded. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the
appeal.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that
the deceased was not a third party and a petition under Section
166 of the MV Act is maintainable only against a third party. It is
also argued that since the owner of the vehicle is the wife of the
deceased and the deceased had borrowed the vehicle from his wife,
he shall step into the shoes of his wife; he became owner of the
vehicle and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 2,00,000/-
only towards personal accident claim, for the premium of
Rs. 100/- paid under the personal accident claim. It is argued that
the Tribunal has wrongly read the judgment in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and another, 2013(1)
T.A.C. 1 (S.C.). It is argued that in that case, in fact, the deceased
was the occupant of the car; he was not the driver of the car.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submits

5

that the issue has finally been decided by this Court in the cases of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asifa and another, 2015 (1) T.A.C.
2008 (Uttara.) and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kumari
Ashmita Pant and others, 2009 (1) U.D. 171. It is also argued that
in order to maintain a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV
Act, the rashness and negligence of the driver is necessary.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants submits that the impugned judgment and
order is lawful. He would submit that in such matters, the Court
should not take a technical view. In support of his contention,
learned counsel has placed reliance on the principle of law as laid
down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thungala Dhana
Laxmi and others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1486, in which case, in
para 34, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“34. It is well settled that in matters concerning
motor accident claims, Courts should not adopt a hyper-
technical approach, See: Surekha v. Santosh, (2021) 16
SCC 467. As rightly submitted by the claimant-
respondents, in accordance with the circular of the IRDA
dated 16.11.2009, insurance companies are liable to
compensate for any occupant in the vehicle under a
comprehensive/package policy . Consequently, we find no
reason to disagree with the reasoning adopted by the High
Court. The present Civil Appeal is dismissed to that
extent.”
15. It is also argued that the policy is comprehensive and
the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 are entitled to compensation.
Learned counsel has also relied on the principle of
law as laid down in the case of Jagtar Singh Alias Jagdev
Singh v. Sanjeev Kumar and others, (2018) 15 SCC 189. In that
case, the insurer was absolved on the ground that the appellant
was a gratuitous passenger in that car. But, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court for

6

consideration as to whether the policy in question is a
“comprehensive/package policy” or exclusively an “Act policy”.
16. In the case of Asifa ( supra ), the facts were almost
identical. In that case also, the husband of the owner of the vehicle
was driving a car, which met with an accident when an animal
came on the road and the vehicle became uncontrolled and fell
down into a ditch. This was the finding of the Tribunal in the
instant case. In the case of Asifa ( supra ), this Court relied on the
principle of law as laid down in the case of Ashmita Pant ( supra ), in
which case, this Court observed as follows:-
“ 12. In the instant case, deceased was using the
car given to him by his wife for use. He is not covered by
the insurance policy in terms of the Act, without any
special contract. The deceased was not the workman of the
owner of the vehicle, therefore, in any case the deceased is
not covered under the term ‘third party’. I am, therefore, of
the view that direction issued by the Tribunal by way of
impugned judgment and award to pay the amount of
compensation to the insurance company, is not tenable in
the eyes of law. ”
17. Accordingly, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Asifa ( supra ) held that the driver, who was husband of the
deceased was not a third party. He would be treated as owner-
cum-driver and he is entitled to the personal accident covers. This
is the fact, which is admitted by the appellant in the instant case.
In fact, in the appeal itself, in the ground of appeal, in para 6, the
appellant writes that the heirs of the deceased Vinod Kumar Bhoj
would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as personal accident.
18. In fact, in the case of, Balakrishnan ( supra ), on which
the Tribunal relied, the claim was not made by a driver. In para 21,
supra
in the case of Balakrishnan ( ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

7

observed that “ In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is
no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive/package policy”
would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of
In the instant case, the
compensation for the occupant in a car.
deceased Vinod Kumar Bhoj was not the occupant in the car.
Instead, he was owner-cum-driver.
19. In the case of Ramkhiladi and another v. United India
Insurance Company and another, (2020) 2 SCC 550, the deceased
had borrowed the motorcycle from its registered owner, which met
with an accident. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that the deceased had stepped into the shoes of the owner of the
vehicle.
20. In the instant case, admittedly the deceased Vinod
Kumar was driving the vehicle owned by his wife/respondent no. 4.
He stepped into the shoes of the owner. He is not a third party.
Therefore, the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants may only be
entitled to the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- under personal
accident covers, as admitted by the appellant itself.
21. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of
the view that the Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding
the compensation to the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants to the
tune of Rs. 63,70,000/-. The respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants
are not entitled to this amount.
22. The respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants are entitled to
get compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- only under the personal
accident covers, which shall be paid by the appellant to the
respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3/claimants, if not already paid. The
claimants shall also be entitled to an interest at the rate of 7 % per

8

annum from the date of filing of the application.
23. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
24. The judgment and order dated 06.08.2016 passed in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 05 of 2016, Smt. Bhaguli Devi
and others v. New India Insurance Company Ltd. and another
stands modified to the extent as aforesaid.
25. Let the record of the Tribunal along with a copy of this
judgment be forwarded to the Tribunal concerned.
26. Let the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by
the appellant before this Court be also remitted to the Tribunal
concerned.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
29.10.2026

Avneet/