SMT HEERA DEVI vs SANJAY KUMAR ARYA ALIAS MINTU

UKHC010013442013

2026:UHC:8173

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS


AO/100/2013
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
--Appellant
Versus
Smt. Heera Devi and Others
--Respondents
With
AO/299/2013
Smt. Heera Devi and Others
--Appellants

Versus
Sanjay Kumar Arya alias Mintu and Others
--Respondents
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel
for the appellant/Oriental Insurance
Company in AO No. 100 of 2013 and
respondent no. 4 in AO No. 299 of 2013.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for
claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 5 in AO No.
100 of 2013 and appellants/claimants in
AO No. 299 of 2013.
Mr. Bhupendra Parsad, learned
counsel holding brief of Mr. Syed Nadim,
learned counsel for respondent no. 3-
Sanjay Kumar.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 6 and 8.
2. Appeal from Order No. 100 of 2013
has been preferred by the Insurance
Company, whereas Appeal from Order No.
299 of 2013 has been preferred by the
claimants/appellants, arising out of the
judgment and award dated 13.12.2012
passed by learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Nainital
in M.A.C.P. No. 78 of 2009, whereby the
learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition
and awarded a sum of Rs.6,61,256/- along
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum,

UKHC010013442013

2026:UHC:8173

fastening the liability upon the Insurance
Company.
3. Since both the appeals arise out of the
same accident and challenge different
aspects of the same judgment and award,
they are being heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
Appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the
Insurance Company has submitted that the
learned Tribunal has erred in recording a
finding that respondent no. 8 was driving
the offending vehicle at the time of the
accident, whereas, in fact, according to the
Insurance Company, respondent no. 6,
namely, Sanjay Kumar, was driving the
vehicle. It is submitted that respondent no.
6 was below 18 years of age on the date of
the accident and, therefore, was not holding
a valid driving licence.
5. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has further submitted that the
evidence available on record corroborates
the fact that respondent no. 6 was driving
the vehicle at the time of the accident and
that respondent no. 8 was subsequently
shown as the driver. It is further submitted
that respondent no. 6 was acquitted for the
offences punishable under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal
Code, and the said acquittal also supports
the contention of the Insurance Company
that respondent no. 6 was driving the
vehicle at the relevant time.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing
for the claimants/respondent nos. 1 to 5
has submitted that the learned Tribunal
had framed a specific issue with regard to
the person who was driving the offending
vehicle at the time of the accident. After
considering the evidence available on
record, including the statement of
respondent no. 8, who categorically stated
that he was driving the vehicle at the time

UKHC010013442013

2026:UHC:8173

of the accident, the learned Tribunal
recorded a finding that respondent no. 8
was, in fact, driving the vehicle.
7. It is further submitted that the
Insurance Company failed to produce any
cogent or reliable evidence to establish that
respondent no. 6 was driving the vehicle
instead of respondent no. 8. It is also
submitted that respondent no. 8 produced
his driving licence before the learned
Tribunal and his statement could not be
discredited in cross-examination.
8. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and have perused the material available on
record.
9. From the record, it is evident that the
learned Tribunal framed a specific issue
regarding the identity of the driver of the
offending vehicle at the time of the
accident. The said issue was considered by
the learned Tribunal after appreciating the
oral as well as documentary evidence
brought on record.
10. Respondent no. 8, in his statement
before the learned Tribunal, categorically
stated that he was driving the offending
vehicle at the time of the accident. He also
produced his driving licence in support of
his contention. Nothing material could be
elicited from his cross-examination by the
Insurance Company so as to discredit his
testimony or establish that he was not
driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
11. On the other hand, the Insurance
Company has failed to produce any
independent and cogent evidence to
establish that respondent no. 6, and not
respondent no. 8, was driving the vehicle at
the time of the accident. Merely relying
upon the fact that respondent no. 6 was
acquitted in the criminal proceedings would
not be sufficient to displace the finding
recorded by the learned Tribunal on the
basis of the evidence available before it.

UKHC010013442013

2026:UHC:8173

12. It is well settled that the proceedings
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
are independent of criminal proceedings
and the judgment of the criminal court is
not binding upon the Tribunal. The
standard of proof applicable in a claim
petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is
also different from that applicable in a
criminal trial.
13. In the present case, the learned
Tribunal has recorded a finding on the
basis of the evidence led before it. The
Insurance Company has failed to
demonstrate that the said finding is
perverse, contrary to the evidence on record
or otherwise suffers from any legal
infirmity. Accordingly, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the finding recorded
by the learned Tribunal that respondent no.
8 was driving the offending vehicle at the
time of the accident.
14. Consequently, Appeal from Order No.
100 of 2013, preferred by the Insurance
Company, is dismissed.
Appeal preferred by the claimants
15. Learned counsel appearing for the
claimants has submitted that the
compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is inadequate and requires
enhancement. The first contention raised is
that the learned Tribunal has wrongly
deducted the family pension received by the
claimants from the income of the deceased
while computing the loss of dependency.
16. Learned counsel for the claimants has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sebastiani Lakra
and Others v. National Insurance Company
Limited and Another, (2019) 17 SCC 465,
and has submitted that the family pension
received by the claimants cannot be
deducted from the income of the deceased
for the purpose of determining the
compensation payable under the Motor
Vehicles Act.

UKHC010013442013

2026:UHC:8173

17. The said submission deserves
acceptance. The family pension received by
the claimants is a benefit arising out of the
service of the deceased and cannot be
treated as a pecuniary advantage arising
from the accidental death so as to reduce
the compensation payable to the
dependants. Therefore, the amount of
family pension could not have been
deducted while computing the loss of
dependency.
18. Learned counsel for the claimants has
further submitted that the learned Tribunal
has failed to grant any amount towards
future prospects, although the deceased
was about 50 years of age. Reliance has
been placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay
Sethi.
19. The law with regard to addition
towards future prospects is now well
settled. The entitlement of the claimants
towards future prospects is to be
determined in accordance with the
principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, having
regard to the age and nature of employment
of the deceased.
20. In the present case, the monthly
income of the deceased has been taken as
Rs.17,019/-. The annual income, therefore,
comes to Rs.2,04,228/-. Since there were
five dependants upon the deceased, one-
fourth of the annual income, amounting to
Rs.51,057/-, is liable to be deducted
towards the personal and living expenses of
the deceased. Thus, the annual income
available for the dependency of the
claimants comes to Rs.1,53,171/-. Since
the deceased was about 50 years of age, an
addition of 30% towards future prospects is
liable to be made, which comes to
Rs.45,951/-. Consequently, the annual loss
of dependency comes to Rs.1,99,122/-.

UKHC010013442013

2026:UHC:8173

Applying the multiplier of 11, the total loss
of dependency comes to Rs.21,90,342/-.
The claimants would further be entitled to
compensation under the conventional
heads. In view of there being five claimants,
an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards
loss of consortium comes to Rs.2,00,000/-.
The claimants are also entitled to
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
Thus, the total compensation payable to the
claimants is calculated as Rs.21,90,342/-
towards loss of dependency, Rs.2,00,000/-
towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/-
towards funeral expenses, making the total
compensation Rs.24,20,342/-.
The learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.6,61,256/-. Accordingly, the claimants
are entitled to an enhanced compensation
of Rs.17,59,086/-, over and above the
amount already awarded by the learned
Tribunal.
20. Accordingly, Appeal from Order No.
299 of 2013, preferred by the claimants, is
allowed. The judgment and award dated
13.12.2012 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 78
of 2009 is modified to the aforesaid extent.
The claimants shall be entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.24,20,342/-, along
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum,
subject to adjustment of the amount, if
any, already paid or deposited pursuant to
the judgment and award of the learned
Tribunal.
21. The appellant-Insurance Company
shall deposit the enhanced amount, along
with applicable interest, before the learned
Tribunal within a period of eight weeks
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this judgment.
22. The statutory amount, if any,
deposited by the Insurance Company at the

UKHC010013442013

2026:UHC:8173

time of filing the appeal, shall be remitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned for
adjustment towards the award amount.
Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall
disburse the amount to the claimants in
accordance with law.
23. The record of the learned Tribunal
shall be transmitted back forthwith.
24. Both the appeals stand disposed of
accordingly.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
11-09-2026
SB







SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf6 39b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205 F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.09.15 17:45:04 +05'30'