RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs AJMER SINGH
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 388 of 2017
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
--Appellant
Versus
Ajmer Singh and Others --Respondents
:-
Presence
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Mani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 & 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
By means of the present Appeal from Order
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the
appellant has sought setting aside the impugned
judgment and award dated 29.04.2017 passed in
M.A.C.P. No.243 of 2014 by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Khatima,
District Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the claim petition
was allowed and compensation was granted to the
claimants to the tune of Rs.9,80,388/- along with
interest.
2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the
present appeal from order are as follows:
A claim petition was filed with the averments
that on 05.11.2012 at 2:30 PM, when son of the
claimants, Navkirat was returning from school on
bicycle, then a truck bearing No. UK 06 CA 0331,
which was being driven by the driver rashly and
negligently, hit the bicycle from behind, due to
which Navkirat sustained injuries and fell down.
The accident was witnessed by persons
standing nearby, namely Satnam Singh and Dilbagh
1
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
Singh and who tried to catch hold of the truck
driver. But the truck driver fled from the spot
driving the truck. The injured Navkirat underwent
treatment in various hospitals. However, in spite of
the treatment, Navkirat went into coma and did not
come out and he was again shown in Apollo
Hospital, Delhi on 17.12.2012, and when he was
brought home, Navkirat died on 18.12.2012 at
home.
3. The information of the said accident was given
at Thana Sitarganj on 08.11.2012 and acknowledgment
of receipt was obtained. However, no FIR was registered
in pursuance to the same. Thus, the claim petition was
filed on account of the death of Navkirat.
4. The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement
denying the averments of the claim petition, however,
contended that the truck was duly insured with the
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and that
on the date of the accident, the entire documents of the
truck were valid and the driver of the truck was having a
valid driving license and the liability for any
compensation would be of the insurance company.
5. The defendant No. 2, insurance company, also
filed its written statement and denied the averments
made in the claim petition and contended that it is
incumbent upon the claimants to prove the accident and
that the liability to pay any compensation is as per the
terms and conditions of the policy and thus contended
that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. The aforesaid claim petition came to be allowed
vide judgment and order dated 29.04.2017 by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
2
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. On Issue No. 1,
the learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence, came
to the conclusion that the accident occurred on
05.11.2012 on account of the rash and negligent driving
by the driver of truck no. UK 06 CA 0331, in which
Navkirat Singh sustained injuries and died.
7. On Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal came to
the conclusion that the driving license was valid on the
date of the accident.
8. On Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal came to
the conclusion that on the date of the accident, the truck
no. UK 06 CA 0331 was being plied with valid and
effective documents.
9. On Issue No. 4, the Tribunal deemed the
notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 4,500/- per
month and assessed the compensation on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others , and
thus granted a compensation of Rs.9,80,388/- along with
6% simple interest per annum.
10. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 29.04.2017, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Pulak Agarwal would submit that the alleged accident
occurred on 05.11.2012 of a young boy of 16 years of
age; however, no FIR of the said accident was lodged. He
would submit that only one intimation appears to be
given to the police station on 08.11.2012. He would
further submit that it is the claimants' version that the
boy was hospitalized in various hospitals and he
ultimately succumbed to injuries on 18.12.2012. After
more than after more than six months of the accident,
complaint was given to the SSP, Udham Singh Nagar on
3
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
16.05.2013. On this complaint, an inquiry was
conducted and it was found that no such accident
occurred.
11. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant
has drawn the attention of the Court to the disposal of
Issue No.1. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the insurance company had led the evidence
of Meena Arya, DW-1, who was posted in SSP office,
Udham Singh Nagar. He would submit that Meena Arya,
who appeared as DW-1, has deposed in her examination-
in-chief that there is no evidence regarding the cause of
the death of Navkirat and no such accident was found to
have taken place in the inquiry. She had further deposed
that regarding the death of Navkirat Singh, no inquest
report or post-mortem report was conducted and an
attempt is being made to register a case for the purpose
of compensation.
12. Thus, relying upon the statements of DW-1,
the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the learned Tribunal has not considered the statements
of DW-1 in the correct perspective.
13. He would further submit that during the
pendency of the claim petition, evidence was also led that
in some other matters, a similar pattern is being
followed. He would further submit that in the instant
case, no immediate steps were taken for registration of
the FIR. He would further submit that even in the
inquiry, it has come to light that no such accident in fact
occurred.
14. He would further submit that only a solitary
witness, PW-2 was produced as the eyewitness and he
would conclude that the claim petition is itself
4
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
suspicious, inasmuch as the accident is itself doubtful.
On the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for
the appellant would pray that the appeal be allowed and
the impugned judgment and order be set aside.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate would
submit that in disposal of Issue No. 1, a finding has been
recorded by the learned Tribunal that from the
statements of DW-1, it is not proved that accident did not
occur. He would further submit that there is no such
report that a report was not lodged at Thana Sitarganj on
08.11.2012. Referring to para 15 of the impugned
judgment, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that to prove the accident,
Dilbagh Singh was examined as PW-2. He deposed that
he was an eyewitness of the accident and at the time of
accident i.e. 2.30 P.M., this witness was standing near
Sugar Mill, Sitarganj in a shop adjacent to a puliya and
he saw that on 05.11.2012 at around 2:30 PM, offending
truck no. UK 06 CA 0331 which was being driven rashly
and negligently by its driver, hit Navkirat Singh, who was
riding on a bicycle, from behind and the truck driver fled
from the spot.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and
2/claimants has also drawn the attention of the Court to
the finding of the learned Tribunal in para 15 aforesaid,
where the learned Tribunal has taken note of the first
information submitted at Police Station Sitarganj Kotwali,
which is on record as paper No. 18 Ga/1. He would
submit that witnessing the said incident by Dilbagh
Singh is also mentioned in the First Information Report,
paper No. 18 Ga/1.
5
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
17. The Court has also gone through the document
18 Ga/1 in the Tribunal's record, which is an intimation
to the Police Station Sitarganj, which also contains a due
acknowledgment of receipt, and in it, inter-alia name of
Dilbagh Singh is mentioned as a witness. Name of
Satnam Singh and Dilbagh Singh have been mentioned
having witnessed the incident/accident by the said truck.
18. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.
1 and 2 would submit that the PW-2 has proved the
manner and the mode of the accident. He would further
submit that the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Tribunal is just and proper after due
appreciation of the evidence on record and there is no
interference is called for.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and
4 Mr. Mani Kumar, would submit that the vehicle is duly
insured and liability, if any, would be of the insurance
company.
20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties
and after going through the record, the only question
which falls for determination in this appeal is, whether
the accident which occurred on 05.11.2012 is duly
proved by the claimants?
21. On one hand, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the accident itself is doubtful,
inasmuch as no first information report has been lodged,
there is no inquest report, there is no post-mortem.
When FIR was tried to be lodged after six months of the
accident, an inquiry was conducted by the SSP office, in
which it was found that no such accident occurred.
Based on this, the learned counsel for the appellant had
submitted that since no accident occurred, hence there is
6
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
no question of claim petition, and the learned Tribunal
erred by presuming that an accident in fact occurred,
and has thus erred by granting compensation where no
accident has in fact occurred.
22. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondent Nos. 1 & 2, while relying upon the
testimony of the PW-2 Dilbagh Singh would contend that
the accident has been duly proved by the PW-2 who was
examined before the Tribunal and who has clearly
deposed that he was an eyewitness and he had seen the
offending truck committing the said accident by hitting
the cycle of the Navkirat Singh from behind.
23. After considering the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the record, from the very first report of the incident which
was submitted to Thana Sitarganj on 08.11.2012, it is
evident that name of Dilbagh Singh was mentioned along
with another person as a witness of the accident. Though
there is no FIR or post-mortem report or inquest report
pertaining to the accident, however, the intimation of the
accident, which is duly acknowledged by the Police
Station Sitarganj on 08.11.2012, only three days after
the accident does corroborate the averments of the claim
petition. Moreover, PW-2 is an eyewitness of the accident,
who has duly proved the manner and mode of the
accident. There is no cogent evidence adduced on behalf
of the insurance company/appellant herein that the
accident did not occur in the manner in which it was
stated by the PW-2 in his statements before the court.
Though in her statements, DW-1 has stated that in the
inquiry, in pursuance to the complaint to the SSP,
Udham Singh Nagar, it has not been found that the
7
UKHC010051562017
2026:UHC:8362
accident has occurred. However, the said statement
cannot by itself falsify the statement as made by the PW-
2, who was himself an eyewitness of the accident and
whose name had in fact been mentioned as an
eyewitness in the very first report which was made to the
Thana Sitarganj after three days of the accident, when in
fact the treatment of Navkirat was undergoing in different
hospitals.
24. Thus, in such view of the matter and also in
view of the fact that in Issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal
has elaborately dealt with the specific aspect of the case
and has considered the testimony of the DW-1 and also
the PW-2 and after carefully examining the entire record
and the testimonies of the witnesses adduced by the
parties, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending truck no. UK 06 CA
0331. This Court does not find any error in the finding
returned on Issue No. 1 by the learned Tribunal. Thus,
the accident is duly proved by the
claimants/respondents.
25. In such view of the matter, there is no scope
for interference and the appeal does not have any force
and deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed
accordingly.
26. The Registry is directed to remit the statutory
amount to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned
forthwith. The original records be also transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
JKJ/
17.09.2026
8