ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs MOHD. RAIS
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
Reserved on 17.09.2026
Delivered on 29.10.2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.435 of 2013
(Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act)
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
………….Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Rais and Others
………Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Sheeba
Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.
Mr. Akhil Kumar Shah, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2.
Ms. Ruchika Negi, proxy counsel for Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned
counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per: Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
By means of the present appeal, preferred
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as “the M.V. Act”), the
appellant–Insurance Company has assailed the
judgment and award dated 20.07.2013 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as “the
Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 02 of
2012. By the said judgment and award, the learned
Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹ 2,86,000/- as
compensation in favour of respondent nos. 1 and
2/claimants.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–
Insurance Company would submit that on
30.05.2011, the deceased, Master Aman, aged about
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
nine years, who was the son of respondent nos. 1 and
2, was travelling with his father, respondent no. 1, on
a scooter from Ramnagar towards Village Dhikuli,
when they reached near Village Ringora, a Gypsy
bearing registration no. UK-04-TA-2979, allegedly
being driven rashly and negligently from the side of
Village Dhikuli, collided with the scooter of respondent
no. 1, as a result of the accident, Master Aman
sustained serious injuries; that, after receiving initial
medical treatment, the injured was referred to Sushila
Tiwari Hospital and thereafter to Shri Ram Murti
Medical College, Bareilly, however, on 10.06.2011, he
succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.
In connection with the incident, an F.I.R. was
registered at the concerned police station. Thereafter,
respondent nos. 1 and 2, being the father and mother
of the deceased minor, instituted the claim petition
seeking compensation of ₹ 10,00,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would
further submit that respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed their
written statement before the learned Tribunal, wherein
it was pleaded that the accident had occurred on
account of the scooter rider attempting to overtake
another vehicle and that three persons were travelling
on the scooter. It was also pleaded that the driver of
the offending Gypsy possessed a valid and effective
driving licence. It is contended that the appellant–
Insurance Company contested the claim petition, inter
alia , on the ground that the driver of the offending
vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
licence on the date of the accident. According to the
appellant, the licence was valid only up to 21.02.2010,
whereas the accident took place on 30.05.2011. In
support of its contention, the Insurance Company
examined a witness who was working as a Junior
Engineer in the office of the Regional Transport Office,
Haldwani.
4. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of
the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties,
framed the following issues:
(i) Whether on 30.05.2011 at about 10:00
a.m., on the Ramnagar–Garjia main road,
near Village Ringora, Police Station
Ramnagar, District Nainital, the driver of the
Gypsy bearing registration no. UK-04-TK-
2979, while driving rashly and negligently,
collided with the scooter on which the
deceased Aman was travelling with his
father, respondent no. 1, resulting in serious
injuries to the deceased and his subsequent
death on 10.06.2011 during treatment?
(ii) Whether the claim petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties, namely, the
owner of the scooter and its insurer, as
pleaded by the appellant–Insurance
Company?
(iii) Whether the offending Gypsy was insured
with the appellant–Insurance Company at
the time of the accident and whether the
claim was covered under the terms and
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
conditions of the insurance policy?
(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
which of the parties?
5. Upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal answered
the material issues in favour of the claimants and
against the appellant–Insurance Company.
Consequently, vide judgment and award dated
20.07.2013, the learned Tribunal awarded
₹
compensation of 2,86,000/- in favour of respondent
nos. 1 and 2 and fastened the liability upon the
appellant–Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the learned Tribunal failed to properly
appreciate the statement of the RTO witness and the
relevant records maintained by the Regional Transport
Office. It is argued that the endorsement authorising
the driver to operate a public service vehicle was valid
only up to 21.02.2010, and, therefore, the driver was
not authorised to drive the transport vehicle on the
date of the accident. It is further submitted that the
learned Tribunal erroneously held that the driver
possessed a valid driving licence for the period from
22.02.2007 to 16.06.2014. According to the appellant,
although the driver possessed a licence for a light
motor vehicle, he did not possess the requisite
authorisation to drive a transport vehicle on the date
of the accident. Learned counsel has also relied upon
the judgment in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
Ltd. v. Rambha Devi in support of the submissions
advanced.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants would submit that
the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is
inadequate and does not constitute just compensation.
It is contended that the deceased was a minor child
aged about nine years and that the learned Tribunal
awarded only ₹ 1,50,000/- towards the death of the
child, apart from the other amounts awarded under
different heads. He would further submit that the
learned Tribunal awarded ₹ 50,000/- under the head of
future prospects and ₹ 10,000/- each to the parents
towards the loss of love and affection and funeral
expenses. It is argued that no appropriate amount was
awarded towards loss of dependency and that the
compensation is liable to be reassessed in accordance
with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @
Nemchand Mahto and Others, (2023) 1 SCC 204.
8. Learned counsel for the claimants has also
placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash and Others v.
Divisional Manager and Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639,
particularly paragraphs 7 and 8 thereof, to contend
that the appellate Court is required to determine just
compensation in accordance with the applicable legal
principles.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant–
Insurance Company, in response to the claim for
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
enhancement, would submit that respondent nos. 1
and 2 have not preferred any independent appeal or
cross-objections challenging the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
Therefore, in an appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company seeking reduction or setting aside of the
award, the compensation cannot be enhanced in
favour of the claimants. In support of the aforesaid
submission, learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana
Prakash and Others v. Divisional Manager and
Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639, wherein the scope of the
appellate Court’s power in an appeal preferred by the
owner or insurer has been considered.
10. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos. 1 and 2–claimants, in response to the aforesaid
submission, would submit that the appellate Court,
while considering an appeal preferred by the
Insurance Company, is not precluded from examining
the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal and granting just and reasonable
compensation in accordance with law. It is contended
that the claimants are legally entitled to receive just
compensation under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, and such entitlement cannot be defeated
merely on the ground that they have not preferred any
independent appeal or cross-objections. Learned
counsel would further submit that the judgment relied
upon by learned counsel for the Insurance Company,
namely, Ranjana Prakash and Others v. Divisional
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
Manager and Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639, is
distinguishable on the facts of the present case and
does not operate as an absolute bar against the grant
of just compensation where the material on record
warrants such enhancement. Accordingly, learned
counsel prays that the claim for enhancement of
compensation be considered in accordance with law,
notwithstanding the absence of any independent
appeal or cross-objections on behalf of the claimants.
11. Learned counsel for the claimants has relied
upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto @ Nemchand
Mahto and Others, (2023) 1 SCC 204, and has
submitted that, keeping in view the age of the
deceased minor, notional income of ₹ 30,000/- per
annum, including future prospects, may be taken into
consideration and the appropriate multiplier may be
applied.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
13. The appellant’s principal contention is that
the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a
valid and effective driving licence on the date of the
accident. The said contention is required to be
examined in the light of the driving licence, the
relevant endorsement, the category of the vehicle
involved, and the evidence adduced by the parties
before the learned Tribunal. It is settled that the
burden of establishing a breach of a policy condition,
where such breach is relied upon by the Insurance
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
Company to avoid or limit its liability, cannot be
discharged merely by raising a bald plea. The insurer
is required to establish the relevant policy breach in
accordance with law. The effect of the licence held by
the driver must be determined by examining the
applicable statutory provisions and the evidence
available on record.
14. The first question which arises for
consideration is whether the appellant–Insurance
Company has established that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence on the date of the accident. The
contention of the appellant is that the authorisation to
drive a public service vehicle was valid only up to
21.02.2010, whereas the accident took place on
30.05.2011. It is, therefore, argued that the driver was
not authorised to drive the offending transport vehicle
on the date of the accident. However, the mere expiry
of a particular endorsement cannot, by itself, be
treated as conclusive proof of a breach of the
insurance policy. The Court is required to examine the
precise category of the vehicle involved, the terms and
validity of the driving licence, the nature of the
endorsement, and the evidence adduced by the
Insurance Company to establish the alleged breach.
15. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has
considered the evidence of the witness produced from
the office of the Regional Transport Office and the
relevant driving licence records. The appellant has
assailed the appreciation of the said evidence,
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
contending that the transport authorisation had
expired before the date of the accident. Nevertheless,
the Insurance Company must establish, by reliable
and cogent evidence, that the driver was not legally
authorised to drive the particular vehicle involved in
the accident and that the alleged non-compliance
constituted a breach of the relevant policy condition.
The burden cannot be discharged merely by referring
to the expiry of one endorsement without establishing
its legal effect upon the driver's authority to operate
the offending vehicle.
16. Upon consideration of the material placed on
record, this Court finds that the appellant has not
demonstrated sufficient grounds for interfering with
the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening
liability upon the Insurance Company. The finding
regarding the validity and effectiveness of the driving
licence does not warrant interference in the absence of
a legally sustainable basis to conclude that the
relevant policy condition stood breached. Accordingly,
the challenge raised by the appellant–Insurance
Company on the ground of the driving licence is
rejected.
17. The next question is whether the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
requires interference. The deceased, Master Aman,
was a minor child aged approximately nine years at
the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal awarded
a total compensation of ₹ 2,86,000/- in favour of
respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants. The claimants
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
have submitted that the amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal does not represent just compensation
and that the compensation is required to be assessed
by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto
@ Nemchand Mahto and Others, (2023) 1 SCC 204. In
the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered the assessment of compensation in a case
involving the death of a minor child, including the
application of notional income and the multiplier
method. The principles laid down therein are required
to be applied having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the heads of
compensation legally permissible.
18. The claimants have proposed the assessment
of compensation on the basis of notional income of
₹ 30,000/- per annum and a multiplier of 15, together
with amounts under the heads of loss of estate,
funeral expenses, filial consortium and medical
expenses. The proposed computation is as follows:
Head of compensation Amount
Loss of dependency ( ₹ 30,000 × 15) ₹ 4,50,000/-
Loss of estate ₹ 19,965/-
Funeral expenses ₹ 19,965/-
₹
Filial consortium to both parents 1,06,480/-
Medical expenses ₹ 66,000/-
Total ₹ 6,62,410/-
19. The above calculation has been placed before
the Court on behalf of the claimants. The entitlement
to each head, the applicable legal principles, and the
supporting evidence must be examined before the
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
amount can be finally awarded.
20. The appellant–Insurance Company has
contended that the claimants have not preferred any
independent appeal or filed cross-objections seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana
Prakash and Others v. Divisional Manager and
Another, (2011) 14 SCC 639. In Ranjana Prakash
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that, in
an appeal preferred by the owner or insurer, the
claimants are entitled to defend the compensation
awarded by the Tribunal by pointing out grounds
which would prevent its reduction. However, the
judgment also addressed the limitations on seeking a
higher amount of compensation in the absence of a
cross-appeal or cross-objections.
21. At the same time, the subsequent decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha v. Santosh,
(2021) 16 SCC 467, is relevant to the consideration of
just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The
legal position must therefore be examined in the light
of the applicable binding precedent and the nature of
the relief sought in the present appeal. The Court
must distinguish between (i) determining the
compensation that is legally just on the basis of the
material on record, and (ii) the permissible scope of
granting an enhanced amount in an appeal filed by
the Insurance Company. The question cannot be
decided merely by accepting the proposed computation
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
without considering the relevant authorities and the
procedural posture of the appeal.
22. Having regard to the age of the deceased, the
principles governing the assessment of compensation
in cases involving the death of a minor child, and the
material available on record, this Court is of the view
that the compensation requires reassessment in
accordance with law. The notional income of
₹ 30,000/- per annum and the multiplier of 15, as
proposed by the claimants, result in compensation of
₹
4,50,000/- towards loss of dependency. In addition
thereto, the amounts claimed under the heads of loss
of estate, funeral expenses, filial consortium and
medical expenses are required to be considered in the
light of the applicable legal principles and the evidence
available on record. The proposed computation is set
out below:
Head of compensation Amount
Loss of dependency ₹ 4,50,000/-
Loss of estate ₹ 19,965/-
Funeral expenses ₹ 19,965/-
Filial consortium to both parents ₹ 1,06,480/-
Medical expenses ₹ 66,000/-
Total compensation ₹ 6,62,410/-
23. Accordingly, subject to the legal
admissibility of the individual heads and the
supporting material on record, the amount of
₹ 6,62,410/- is determined as the proposed
reassessed compensation.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana
Prakash (supra) laid down principles regarding the
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
scope of enhancement in an appeal preferred by the
owner or insurer. The later judgment in Surekha
(supra) is also relevant to the power of the appellate
Court to ensure that just compensation is awarded
under the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicable
position must be considered while determining
whether the reassessed amount can be granted in
the present proceedings. On the facts and
circumstances of the present case, and having
regard to the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles
Act, this Court considers it appropriate to examine
the entitlement to just compensation on the basis of
the applicable principles rather than treating the
absence of cross-objections as conclusively
preventing consideration of the reassessment.
25. Consequently, the compensation payable to
respondent nos. 1 and 2/claimants is reassessed at
₹ 6,62,410/-, subject to adjustment of any amount
already deposited or paid pursuant to the judgment
and award of the learned Tribunal.
26. The appellant–Insurance Company shall
deposit the balance amount, after giving credit for
the amount already deposited or paid, before the
learned Tribunal within the period prescribed by this
Court. The amount shall carry interest at the rate
applicable under the judgment and award, unless
modified in accordance with law.
27. Accordingly, the present appeal is
dismissed insofar as the challenge raised by the
UKHC010018322013
2026:UHC:9854
appellant–Insurance Company to the finding of
liability is concerned. The compensation is
₹
reassessed at 6,62,410/- in terms of the foregoing
discussion, subject to the applicable legal principles
and adjustment of the amount already awarded or
deposited. The learned Tribunal shall ensure
disbursement of the amount in favour of the
claimants in accordance with law.
28. All pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
29. The record of the appeal shall be consigned
accordingly.
30. There shall be no order as to costs.
31. The statutory amount if any remitted back
to the learned Tribunal.
(ALOK MAHRA,J.)
29.10.2026
Mamta