SMT. POONAM DEVI vs THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

Court
Uttarakhand High Court

UKHC010017442013

2026:UHC:8213
Judgment reserved on:-02.09.2026
Judgment delivered on:-11.09.2026


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No.208 of 2013



Smt. Poonam Devi and others ………Appellants

Versus

The New India Assurance

Company and another ………Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mohd. Suhail, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep
Kothari, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Jasmeen
Wahid, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya,
learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This appeal against order is being preferred
against the judgment and award dated 18.05.2012, passed
by learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/District and
Sessions Judge, Tehri-Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No.11 of 2011,
Smt. Poonam Devi and others Vs. The New India Assurance
Company and another .
2. The brief facts of the case are that on
17.01.2008, at about 08:00 P.M., near Village Padagali,
District-Tehri Garhwal, a Tata Spacio bearing registration
No.UA-7M-5553 met with an accident, resulting in the
death of Laxman Singh. The deceased was owner of the
said vehicle and was travelling therein at the time of the
accident. His wife, mother and three minor children filed a
claim petition seeking compensation of ₹ 11,25,000/-. The
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri-Garhwal,
vide judgment and award dated 18.05.2012, dismissed the
claim petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award,

UKHC010017442013

2026:UHC:8213
the claimants have preferred the present appeal.
3. The respondent-insurance company in written
statements denied the claim for want of knowledge and
contended that no injury report/postmortem report had
been produced by the claimants. It was further pleaded
that since the deceased himself was owner of the vehicle,
he was not a third party and was, therefore, not entitled to
claim compensation under the policy. The claim petition
was accordingly liable to be dismissed.
4. Respondent no.2, Makan Singh, in written
statements admitted the identity of the deceased and that
he was the owner of the vehicle, but denied that he had
driven the vehicle rashly or negligently. No oral evidence
was led on behalf of the respondents.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the
Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident in question took place at about
08:00 P.M. on 17.01.2008 near Village Padagali, Police
Station-Ghansali, District-Tehri Garhwal, due to rash and
negligent driving of Tata Spacio No.UA-07M-5553 by its
driver, resulting in the death of Sri Laxman Singh S/o Late
Sri Mor Singh, as alleged?
2. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not duly licensed,
causing breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance contract, and the owner of the vehicle did not
possess a valid permit and fitness certificate in violation of
the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as alleged by
opposite party No.1 in paragraphs 23 and 24 of its written
statement? If so, its effect?
3. To what compensation are the appellants entitled and
from whom?
a. While deciding Issue no.1 the Tribunal held that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
vehicle by respondent no.2, Makan Singh, resulting in the

UKHC010017442013

2026:UHC:8213
death of Laxman Singh. The Tribunal relied upon the
testimony of PW-2, Kesar Singh, who was treated as an
eyewitness, and accordingly decided the issue in favour of
the claimants.
b. While deciding Issue no.2 the Tribunal found that the
relevant documents, including the registration certificate,
permits, fitness certificate and driving licence, were on
record and were not disputed by the insurance company.
Accordingly, no breach of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy was found and the issue was decided
against the insurance company.
c. While deciding Issue no.3 the Tribunal held that the
deceased himself was the owner of the vehicle and was not
a third party. Relying upon the decisions referred to in its
judgment i.e., Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553 , it held that the insurance
company was not liable to indemnify the deceased owner
for his own death. Consequently, the claim petition was
dismissed without assessing the amount of compensation.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
submitted that the deceased Laxman Singh died in the
accident dated 17.01.2008 while travelling in his Tata
Spacio bearing registration No.UA-07M-5553. It was
pleaded that the vehicle was being driven by respondent
no.2, Makan Singh, in a rash and negligent manner,
resulting in the accident and death of the deceased. On this
basis, compensation of ₹ 11,25,000/- was claimed from the
respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company submitted that the claim petition was
liable to be dismissed. It was contended that the deceased
himself was the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, could
not be treated as a third party for the purposes of
indemnification under the insurance policy. It was also

UKHC010017442013

2026:UHC:8213
submitted that the deceased, being the owner of the
vehicle, could not seek indemnification from the Insurance
Company for his own death and, therefore the claim itself
was not maintainable. Learned counsel submitted that the
learned Tribunal had rightly considered these aspects and
rightly dismissed the claim petition.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the record, this Court has considered the
rival submissions. The finding of the learned Tribunal on
Issue No.1, holding that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of Tata Spacio bearing registration
No.UA-7M-5553 by respondent no.2, resulting in the death
of Laxman Singh, is based upon the evidence available on
record and does not call for interference. The finding on
Issue no.2, whereby no breach of the terms and conditions
of the insurance policy was found, also does not warrant
interference.
9. The principal question which arises for
consideration is whether the claim of the legal
representatives of the deceased could have been rejected
merely on the ground that the deceased was himself the
owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal has rejected the
claim principally by relying upon the case of Dhanraj v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 553
and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jhuma Saha, reported in
(2007) 9 SCC 263 , on the premise that the owner of the
vehicle is not a third party and, in the absence of specific
coverage, the insurer would not be liable for the owner's
own death. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid
proposition; however, the terms of the particular insurance
policy are required to be examined. In the present case, the
policy is a “Passengers Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy
B Package” in respect of Tata Spacio having seating
capacity of nine persons. Significantly, the policy schedule
specifically records a premium of ₹ 2,115/- towards

UKHC010017442013

2026:UHC:8213
“Liability to Passenger(s) 9”. The policy separately provides
for Workmen Compensation in respect of one employee.
Thus, the policy specifically contemplated liability towards
passengers travelling in the vehicle.
10. It is also undisputed that the deceased was not
driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The vehicle
was being driven by respondent no.2, Makan Singh, while
Laxman Singh was travelling therein. Therefore, merely
because the deceased happened to be the owner of the
vehicle, his status as a passenger/occupant cannot be
disregarded, particularly when the policy itself specifically
provides coverage for passengers. The judgment in Dhanraj
(supra) is distinguishable on its own facts, as in that case
there was no material showing that the policy specifically
covered the risk death and injury to the owner. In the
present case, on the contrary, the policy contains an
express provision relating to liability towards nine
passengers and a separate premium was charged for such
liability. The subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.
Thungala Dhana Laxmi, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
1486 , also supports the proposition that the coverage
under a comprehensive/package policy has to be given
effect to in accordance with its terms where the owner is
travelling as an occupant of the insured vehicle. The
relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:
“34. It is well settled that in matters concerning motor
accident claims, Courts should not adopt a hyper-
technical approach. 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.”

11. Consequently, the learned Tribunal erred in

UKHC010017442013

2026:UHC:8213
treating the ownership of the deceased as, by itself,
sufficient to non-suit the claimants.
12. The appellants-claimants are, therefore, entitled
to compensation. The deceased was aged 33 years at the
time of the accident. In the absence of reliable documentary
evidence establishing his actual income, his notional
income is required to be assessed with reference to the
prevailing position at the time of the accident. Having
regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Laxmi Devi v. Mohammad Tabbar,
reported in (2008) 12 SCC 165 , the monthly income of the
deceased is assessed at ₹ 3,000/-, which comes to
₹
36,000/- per annum. Since the deceased was 33 years of
age, an addition of 40% towards future prospects is liable
to be made in terms of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Thus, the annual
income after addition of future prospects i.e., ₹ 14,400 (40%
of annual income of the deceased) comes to ₹ 50,400/-. The
deceased left behind five dependants, namely, his wife,
mother and three minor children. Accordingly, in terms of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121 , one-fourth of the income is liable to be
deducted towards the personal and living expenses of the
deceased. The annual contribution towards the family
would, therefore, be ₹ 37,800/-. The deceased being 33
years of age, the appropriate multiplier is 16. The loss of
dependency thus comes to ₹ 6,04,800/- ( ₹ 37,800 × 16).
13. The claimants are also entitled to compensation
under the conventional heads. The wife is entitled to
spousal consortium, the three children to parental
consortium and the mother to filial consortium.
Accordingly, a sum of ₹ 40,000/- each is awarded towards
consortium to the five claimants, amounting to ₹ 2,00,000/-
. A further sum of ₹ 15,000/- towards loss of estate and
₹ 15,000/- towards funeral expenses is awarded. Thus, the

UKHC010017442013

2026:UHC:8213
total compensation payable to the claimants comes to
₹ 8,34,800/- ( ₹ 6,04,800/- + ₹ 2,00,000/- + ₹ 15,000/- +
₹ 15,000/-).
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
and award dated 18.05.2012 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/District & Sessions Judge, Tehri
Garhwal in MACP No.11 of 2011, Smt. Poonam Devi and
others Vs. The New India Assurance Company and another ,
is hereby set aside.
15. The claimants shall be entitled to a total
compensation of ₹ 8,34,800/- along with interest at the rate
of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realization. Respondent no.1-Insurance
Company shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the
learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from today.
Learned Claims Tribunal shall release the amount so
deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company to the
appellants/claimants forthwith.




( Pankaj Purohit, J .)

11.09.2026
SK