THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. SUMAN

UKHC010017282012

2026:UHC:8033
Reserved on – 31.08.2026
Pronounced on -07.09.2026


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 483 of 2012


The New India Assurance Company Limited
--Appellant

Versus
Smt. Suman and others

--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for respondent-claimants through V.C.
Mr. Piyush Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent no.6-owner of vehicle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the
judgment and award dated 09.07.2012 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in MACP No.82 of
2009, Smt. Suman and others v. Pushpraj and another .
2. Cross-objection No.13571 of 2012 along with a
Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No.13570 of 2012)
has also been filed by the respondents-claimants for
enhancement of the award. As per office report, there
was a delay of 43 days. Having heard learned Counsel
for the parties, this Court on being satisfied on the
grounds pleaded in the delay condonation application,
condone the delay in filing the cross-objection. Both the
appeal and cross-objection are being decided by this
judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on
05.02.2007, at about 10:00 p.m., Puran Chand was
returning from Kichha on his motorcycle bearing

UKHC010017282012

2026:UHC:8033
registration No. U.A.06-D/4666. When he reached near
Shantipuri Gola Gate, Nagla, P.S. Pantnagar, District
Udham Singh Nagar, a truck bearing registration No.
U.A.04-C/0548, allegedly being driven rashly and
negligently, came from the opposite direction and collided
with his motorcycle. Due to the impact, Puran Chand
sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. An FIR
was initially lodged against an unknown vehicle. During
investigation, the involvement of the aforesaid truck was
alleged on the basis of the statements of the
eyewitnesses. The deceased was aged about 32 years and
was engaged in the work of sanitary pipe and paper mill
lalakuan contract work, earning approximately
Rs.6,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal, upon
appreciation of the evidence, held the involvement of the
insured truck and negligence of its driver proved and
awarded Rs.4,14,500/- with interest to the claimants.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Insurance
Company has preferred the present appeal
4. It was pleaded by the respondent-claimants
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of Truck No. U.A.04-C/0548, resulting in the
death of Puran Chand. It was further pleaded that the
deceased was aged about 32 years who was also the sole
bread winner for the family, was engaged in sanitary pipe
and paper mill contract work, and was earning about
Rs.6,000/- per month, and therefore the claimants were
entitled to compensation.
5. The claimants-respondent nos.1 to 6, by way of
cross-objection, have sought enhancement of the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It has been
contended that the Tribunal erred in assessing the
deceased’s monthly income @Rs.3,000/- p.m. instead of

UKHC010017282012

2026:UHC:8033
Rs.6000-7000/-, and in not granting the appropriate
enhancement under the applicable principles of
compensation. It has, accordingly, been prayed that the
compensation be enhanced.
6. The owner denied the allegations and pleaded
that the vehicle did not ply on the route where the
accident was alleged to have occurred, as it was operated
only in the hill areas. It was further pleaded that, if any
compensation was found payable, the same was liable to
be borne by the Insurance Company.
7. The Insurance Company contested the claim,
inter alia, pleading that the driver of the alleged offending
vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving
licence and that the Insurance Company was not
informed of the accident as required under the terms of
the policy and the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further
pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased
himself, and therefore the Insurance Company was not
liable to pay the compensation.
8. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the
Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether on 05.02.2007 at about 10:00 p.m.,
when Puran Chand was coming from Kichha on
Motorcycle No. UA-06-D/4666, near Shantipuri
Gola Gate, Nagla, within the jurisdiction of P.S.
Pantnagar, the driver of Truck No. U.A.04-C/0548,
while driving the said truck rashly and negligently,
collided with the motorcycle of Puran Chand,
causing him serious injuries resulting in his death
at the spot?
2. Whether at the time of the aforesaid accident,
the driver of Truck No. U.A.04-C/0548 possessed a

UKHC010017282012

2026:UHC:8033
valid driving licence and all the documents of the
vehicle were valid?
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive
compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

9. While deciding Issue no.1 the Tribunal, upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held
that the accident occurred on 05.02.2007 due to the rash
and negligent driving of Truck No. U.A.04-C/0548, which
collided with the motorcycle of Puran Chand, resulting in
his death. The Tribunal relied, inter alia, upon the FIR,
the testimony of PW-2 and the other evidence on record,
and held the involvement of the insured truck and
negligence of its driver to be proved.
10. While deciding Issue no.2 the Tribunal held
that the driver of the offending truck possessed a valid
and effective driving licence at the time of the accident
and that the requisite documents of the vehicle were
valid. Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the
owner/insured and against the Insurance Company.
11. While deciding Issue no.3 the Tribunal
assessed the deceased's age as 32 years and his monthly
income at Rs.3,000/-, deducted one-fourth towards
personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 15,
determining the loss of dependency at Rs.4,05,000/-.
Adding Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/-
towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,500/- towards loss
of estate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,14,500/- with
interest, fastening the liability upon the Insurance
Company.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record, this Court finds that the
involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident has not

UKHC010017282012

2026:UHC:8033
been established by cogent and reliable evidence. The
case of the respondents substantially rests upon the
testimony of PW-2, Mohd. Salim. However, this witness
himself stated that, owing to darkness, he could not see
the registration number of the vehicle and that, despite
his attempt to stop the truck, it fled from the
spot.Significantly, the first information report was lodged
against an unknown vehicle. In such circumstances, the
subsequent attribution of the accident to the insured
truck bearing registration No.UA-04-C-0548 requires
convincing corroboration, which is lacking on the record.
13. The reliance placed by the respondents upon
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Leeladhar Joshi &
Others, 2014 SCC OnLine Utt 1356, is misplaced. In the
said case, the testimony of the eyewitness identifying the
offending vehicle remained uncontroverted, as the owner
and driver of the vehicle did not cross-examine the said
witness. The evidentiary position in the present case is
materially different, where the alleged eyewitness himself
admits his inability to see the registration number
because of darkness. Likewise, Smt. Shanti Joshi &
Others v. Salig Ram Saini & Another, Appeal from Order
No.463 of 2011, does not advance the case of the
respondents. In that case, the High Court found the
Tribunal's finding regarding non-involvement of the
vehicle to be perverse as it had proceeded on the basis of
an application allegedly submitted by the owner for
dismantling the vehicle, which had neither been
produced in evidence nor exhibited, and consequently
could not have been relied upon for determining
involvement of the vehicle.The said decision, therefore,
turned on its own evidentiary facts and cannot be
construed as dispensing with the requirement of reliable

UKHC010017282012

2026:UHC:8033
evidence establishing involvement of the particular
offending vehicle.
14. In the present case, the difficulty is not merely
that the FIR was initially against an unknown vehicle,
rather, the very witness relied upon for subsequently
connecting the insured vehicle with the accident admits
that he could not see its registration number. There is no
satisfactory independent evidence on record explaining
how the particular insured vehicle came to be identified
thereafter. The learned Tribunal, therefore, erred in
treating the involvement of the insured vehicle as proved.
Once such foundational fact is not established, the
consequential finding of negligence and fastening of
liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company cannot
be sustained.
15. So far as the cross-objection preferred by
respondent-claimant nos.1 to 6 seeking enhancement of
compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the
same cannot be accepted. The cross-objection proceeds
on the premise that the liability arising from the accident
is fastened upon the appellant-insurance company.
However, in view of the finding recorded hereinabove that
the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident has
not been established by cogent and reliable evidence, the
liability of the appellant-insurance company itself cannot
be sustained. Consequently, there can be no occasion for
enhancement of the compensation against the appellant-
insurance company. The cross-objection is, therefore,
liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and cross-
objection is dismissed. The judgment and award passed
by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Haldwani, is hereby

UKHC010017282012

2026:UHC:8033
set aside. The claim petition, insofar as it fastens liability
upon the appellant-Insurance Company in respect of the
alleged accident involving vehicle No.UA-04-C-0548, is
dismissed.
17. The appellant-insurance company is at liberty
to recover the amount of award (i.e. 50% of the amount
deposited by the appellant-insurance company before
learned Tribunal) released in favour of the respondent-
claimants as per the order passed by this Court vide
order dated 10.07.2014.
18. The statutory amount deposited before this
Court be remitted by the Registry to the concerned
Claims Tribunal to be released in favour of the appellant-
insurance company.
19. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.


( .)
Pankaj Purohit, J
07.09.2026
Rdang
RAJEEV
DANG
Digitally signed by RAJEEV DANG
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=963da6fc6df8dbb91944e0c58b9ed259e
c3d800f419a1199f15a3961c8ca2957,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B81F04
3D778B37D74D2DB7200F2DABC7ABCC1CA358D
, cn=RAJEEV DANG
Date: 2026.09.08 10:50:17 +05'30'