THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs KM. RINKY ALIAS SIMRAN

UKHC010016082013

2026:UHC:10180
Judgment reserved on: 30.09.2026
Judgment delivered on: 04.11.2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

04 November, 2026
Appeal From Order No. 77 of 2013
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. --Appellant
Versus
Km. Rinky Alias Simran and Others --Respondents
with

Appeal From Order No. 111 of 2013
Km. Rinki Alias Simran --Appellant
Versus
Jaswant Singh and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for appellant-Insurance
Company in AO/77/2013 and for respondent No.3 in
AO/111/2013.
Mr. Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in
AO/77/2013 and for appellant in AO/111/2013.
Mr. Raunak Pant, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Naresh
Pant, learned counsel for respondent No.6-United India
Assurance Company, through V.C.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
These two connected appeals are arising out of
the judgment and award dated 26.11.2012 passed by
st
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1 Additional
District Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun, in MACP No. 22 of
2009, Km. Rinki @ Simran v. Jaswant Singh and others ,
whereby, compensation of ₹ 8,88,277/- along with interest
@6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition
till actual payment was awarded in favour of the claimant.
2. A.O. No.77 of 2013 has been preferred by
appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd., challenging
award on the grounds of negligence, validity of the driving
licence and the quantum of compensation, whereas, A.O. No.
111 of 2013 has been preferred by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation. Since both appeals arise out
of the same judgment and award, they are being decided by
this common judgment.
1

UKHC010016082013

2026:UHC:10180

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.12.2007,
at about 7:30 p.m., the claimant, Km. Rinki @ Simran, was
travelling with her mother in Vikram No. U.A.-07-C-8421
from Rishikesh towards Shyampur. When they reached near
Kale-ki-Dhal, the claimant was getting down from the
Vikram when a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. U.A.-07-
C-8499, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by its
driver, hit the Vikram from behind. As a result, claimant
sustained serious injuries, including injuries to her spine.
She was initially taken to the Government Hospital,
Rishikesh, where she remained admitted until 30.01.2008.
Thereafter, she received treatment at hospitals in
Muzaffarnagar and Delhi, including AIIMS, and underwent
surgery for her spinal injuries. The claimant instituted a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, seeking compensation of ₹ 16,40,000/- on account of
the injuries, permanent disability, medical expenses and loss
of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal, by judgment and
award dated 26.11.2012, partly allowed the claim petition
₹
and awarded compensation of 8,88,277/- along with
interest @6% per annum from the date of filing claim petition
till actual payment is made. Aggrieved by the said award, the
Insurance Company preferred A.O. No. 77 of 2013, while the
claimant preferred A.O. No. 111 of 2013 seeking
enhancement of compensation.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the claim petition
(respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein-Driver and owner of Vehicle
No. UA 07 C 8499), in their written statement, denied the
claimant’s allegations and contended that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the other vehicle. They further pleaded that the driver of
their vehicle possessed a valid driving licence and that the
necessary vehicle documents were valid.

2

UKHC010016082013

2026:UHC:10180
5. Respondent No.3-New India Assurance Company
Ltd.-insurer of Tata Sumo, disputed the claimant’s
allegations regarding the accident, age, income and injuries.
It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of claimant and the driver of the Vikram, and that
the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the
policy conditions, including the requirement of a valid
driving licence. The Insurance Company accordingly
disputed its liability to pay compensation.
6. Respondent No. 6-the United India Assurance
Company Ltd.-insurer of Vikram, also filed a written
statement denying the claimant’s allegations and disputing
the claim regarding her age, income and the circumstances
of the accident. It further disputed its liability to pay
compensation.
7. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 in the claim petition
(Owner/Driver, Ex-owners of the Tata Sumo vehicle No. UA
07 C 8421) did not file their written statements and were
proceeded against ex parte.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, learned
Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:
1. Whether on 05.12.2007, at about 7:30 p.m., near Kale-ki-
Dhal, Rishikesh, the driver of Tata Sumo No. U.A.-07-C-
8499, while driving rashly and negligently, hit Vikram No.
U.A.-07-C-8421, causing serious injuries to the claimant,
Km. Rinki @ Simran?
2. Whether, at the time of the accident, the driver of Tata
Sumo No. U.A.-07-C-8499 was holding a valid and
effective driving licence?
3. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and, if so,
to what amount and from which of the opposite parties?

9. While deciding Issue No.1, learned Tribunal
considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by
the parties and found that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No. U.A.-07-C-8499,
which hit Vikram No. U.A.-07-C-8421 from behind. The
Tribunal found that claimant sustained serious injuries in
3

UKHC010016082013

2026:UHC:10180
the accident and the evidence on record established the
involvement of offending vehicle and negligence of its driver.
Accordingly, the issue was decided in favour of the claimant.
10. While deciding Issue No. 2, learned Tribunal
examined the evidence relating to driving licence of the driver
of the offending Tata Sumo. Upon consideration of the
material on record, Tribunal held that driver possessed a
valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident.
Accordingly, the issue was decided against Insurance
Company.
11. While deciding Issue No.3, learned Tribunal
assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹ 5,000/- and
considered the permanent disability sustained by her and its
effect on her earning capacity. The Tribunal assessed
disability at 50% and awarded ₹ 5,40,000/- towards loss of
future earnings, ₹ 25,000/- towards pain and suffering,
₹ 30,000/- towards loss of income, ₹ 35,000/- towards loss of
other services and ₹ 1,00,000/- towards future surgery. It
₹
further awarded 1,58,277/- towards medical expenses,
taking the total compensation to ₹ 8,88,277/-. Interest at the
rate of 6% per annum was also awarded. Accordingly, the
claim petition was partly allowed.
12. Learned counsel for Insurance Company–New
India Assurance Company Limited, submitted that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of Vikram
No. U.A.-07-C-8421 and challenged the finding of Tribunal
on Issue No. 1. It was further contended that Tribunal
wrongly assessed the claimant’s permanent disability at
50%, despite the disability certificate indicating 40%, and
awarded excessive compensation under various heads,
including pain and suffering, loss of income, medical
expenses and future surgery. The claimant’s age and income
were also disputed. It was, therefore, prayed that the award
be set aside or suitably modified.
4

UKHC010016082013

2026:UHC:10180
13. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that
the compensation awarded by Tribunal was inadequate
considering the serious spinal injuries and permanent
disability sustained by her. It was contended that Tribunal
failed to properly assess the impact of disability on her
functional capacity and future earnings prospects, despite
evidence of her monthly income of ₹ 5,000/-. The claimant
sought enhancement of compensation towards loss of future
earnings, pain and suffering, loss of income, medical
expenses, future treatment and loss of amenities. Reliance
was placed on Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC
, and enhancement of compensation with interest @ 9%
343
per annum was sought.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the record, the principal questions for
consideration are assessment of functional disability and the
adequacy of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. The
Insurance Company has challenged the assessment of the
claimant’s disability at 50%, contending that the disability
certificate records permanent physical disability of 40%.
However, physical disability and functional disability are
distinct concepts. As explained by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the
effect of an injury on earning capacity must be assessed with
reference to the nature of claimant’s occupation and the
limitations caused by injury. In the present case, claimant
suffered a burst fracture of the spine, resulting in permanent
disability. She was working as a computer operator, an
occupation that requires prolonged sitting and sustained
physical endurance. The injury is, therefore, likely to affect
her capacity to perform her occupational duties over an
extended period. In these circumstances, Tribunal’s
assessment of functional disability at 50%, despite the
medical certificate recording physical disability at 40%,
cannot be said to be unjustified. The challenge raised by
5

UKHC010016082013

2026:UHC:10180
Insurance Company on this ground does not warrant
interference.
15. The next question concerns the enhancement of
compensation sought by the claimant. Learned Tribunal
assessed her monthly income at ₹ 5,000/-, thereby fixing her
annual income at ₹ 60,000/-. It thereafter applied a
multiplier of 18 and assessed functional disability at 50%,
awarding ₹ 5,40,000/- towards loss of future earning
capacity. However, no addition towards future prospects was
made. The claimant was approximately 25 years of age at the
time of accident and was employed as a computer operator
in a company. Having regard to her age and employment, an
addition of 40% towards future prospects is warranted, on
the basis that her employment was on a fixed salary rather
than permanent salaried employment, in accordance with
the principles laid down by Constitution Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 .
₹
16. Accordingly, the annual income of 60,000/- is
enhanced by 40%, bringing it to ₹ 84,000/-. After applying
the functional disability of 50%, annual loss of earning
capacity comes to ₹ 42,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 18,
compensation under the head of loss of future earning
capacity is recalculated at ₹ 7,56,000/-, as against
₹ 5,40,000/- awarded by learned Tribunal. The compensation
under this head is, therefore, enhanced by ₹ 2,16,000/-. The
remaining amounts awarded under the other heads do not
call for interference. Consequently, the total compensation
stands enhanced from ₹ 8,88,277/- to ₹ 11,04,277/-. The
claimant is entitled to interest @6% per annum, as awarded
by the learned Tribunal.
17. Accordingly, A.O. No. 77 of 2013, preferred by the
Insurance Company, is dismissed. A.O. No. 111 of 2013,
preferred by the claimant, is partly allowed. The
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced
6

UKHC010016082013

2026:UHC:10180
₹ ₹
from 8,88,277/- to 11,04,277/-. The Insurance Company
shall deposit the balance compensation of ₹ 1,38,277/- and
enhanced compensation of ₹ 2,16,000/- totaling ₹ 3,54,277/-,
along with interest @6% per annum, within eight weeks from
today. The amount of ₹ 7,25,000/- directed to be deposited
under the interim order dated 26.02.2013, after deducting
the statutory deposit of ₹ 25,000/- from ₹ 7,50,000/-, shall be
duly accounted for, subject to verification of the actual
deposit made. The amount deposited in the form of fixed
deposit, along with accrued interest thereon, shall be
released to the claimant. Any amount already withdrawn by
the claimant shall be adjusted while determining the balance
payable.
18. Let the T.C.R. be immediately sent back to the
learned Trial Court for consignment.
19. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.




( .)
Pankaj Purohit, J
04.11.2026

PN

PREETI
NEGI

Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5
f9f0276c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A8
3D84BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2026.11.04 18:47:44 +05'30'
7