THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SANDEEP KUMAR SAINI
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010001542012
2026:UHC:7963
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 487 of 2012
st
31 August, 2026
The New India Assurance Company Limited
--Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Kumar Saini & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, learned Counsel
i/b Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the
judgment and award dated 13.07.2012 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge/Third FTC, Haridwar in MACP No.22 of 2008,
Sandeep Kumar Saini v. Dr. Tarun Kumar Gupta and
others.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on
09.11.2007, respondent No.1, while riding his
motorcycle, met with an accident with car No.UA-08A-
8586, owned and driven by respondent No. 2. In the
accident, respondent No. 1 sustained injuries to his
head, hand and leg and remained under treatment at
different hospitals. He consequently preferred a claim
petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,06,000/-. The
claim was contested by the appellant-Insurance
Company, principally on the ground that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself.
The learned Tribunal, however, held respondent No. 2
responsible for the accident and awarded a sum of
Rs.3,17,014/- to respondent No. 1, along with interest at
1
UKHC010001542012
2026:UHC:7963
the rate of 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the said
judgment and award dated 13.07.2012, present appeal
has been preferred by the Insurance Company.
3. The claimant pleaded that on 09.11.2007,
while he was travelling on his motorcycle, the offending
Santro car bearing registration No.UA-08A-8586, driven
at a high speed and negligently, came from the opposite
direction and collided with his motorcycle, resulting in
serious injuries to him. He claimed compensation of
Rs.6,06,000/- for the injuries, treatment and
consequential loss.
4. The owner/driver of the offending vehicle
denied the allegation of negligence and pleaded that the
accident occurred due to the claimant's own fault, as he
was driving his motorcycle on the wrong side of the road
and while attempting to save himself, he collided with the
car.
5. The appellant-Insurance Company pleaded
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
claimant, who was driving the motorcycle on the wrong
side of the road. It was further pleaded that the claimant
had no valid driving licence and was not wearing a
helmet. The appellant also pleaded violation of the policy
conditions on account of absence of valid documents and
driving licence of the car driver and disputed the
compensation claimed.
6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the
Tribunal framed the following issues :
A. Whether on 09.11.2007 at about 5:30 p.m., at
village Badshahpur, Haridwar-Laksar Road, in front
of Inter College, Police Station Pathri, District
Haridwar, the driver of vehicle No. UA-08A-8586
drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and collided
2
UKHC010001542012
2026:UHC:7963
with motorcycle No. UA-08J-8903, thereby causing
serious injuries to Sandeep Kumar?
B. Whether, at the time of the accident, the car
driver possessed valid and effective documents?
C. Whether the accident was the result of the rash
and negligent driving of the motorcycle driver?
D. Whether, at the time of the accident, the
motorcycle driver did not possess a valid driving
licence and was not wearing a helmet, and if so, its
effect?
E. Whether the claimant is entitled to any
compensation and, if so, to what amount and from
whom?
7. While deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 3 together, the
Tribunal held that the testimony of the claimant
regarding the manner of accident was supported by the
evidence on record. The Tribunal found the driver of car
No.UA-08A-8586 responsible for the accident and held
that the accident was caused due to his rash and
negligent driving, and not due to the negligence of the
motorcycle driver.
8. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Tribunal held
that the driver of the offending car was possessing a valid
and effective driving licence and that the vehicle was
being driven with valid and effective documents at the
time of the accident.
9. While deciding Issue No. 4, the Tribunal held
that the claimant was possessing a valid driving licence
on the date of the accident. The driving licence was valid
from 03.05.2006 to 02.05.2009, whereas the accident
occurred on 09.11.2007. Thus, no adverse inference was
drawn against the claimant on this ground. The issue
3
UKHC010001542012
2026:UHC:7963
was accordingly decided in favour of the claimant.
10. While deciding Issue No. 5, the Tribunal held
that the claimant was entitled to compensation for the
injuries suffered in the accident. Towards medical
expenses, an amount of Rs.2,45,014/- was awarded; for
54% permanent disability, Rs.54,000/- was awarded;
and towards loss of income, Rs.18,000/- was awarded.
Thus, the total compensation was assessed at
Rs.3,17,014/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual
payment.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record, this Court finds that the
principal challenge in the present appeal is to the finding
of the Tribunal regarding negligence. The claimant, who
himself sustained injuries in the accident, appeared as a
witness and stated that the Santro car bearing
registration No.UA-08A-8586 was being driven at a high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner and collided
with his motorcycle. His testimony has not been
effectively rebutted by the owner/driver of the offending
vehicle. Much emphasis has been placed on the site plan,
on the basis of which it has been argued that the
claimant was driving his motorcycle on the wrong side of
the road. However, the claimant, in his evidence,
specifically disputed the correctness of the site plan and
stated that he had been wrongly shown on the wrong
side. The Tribunal, after considering the oral as well as
documentary evidence, accepted the claimant's version.
Merely because the site plan does not support the
claimant's version in its entirety, his testimony as an
injured eyewitness cannot be discarded, particularly
when there is no convincing evidence establishing that
4
UKHC010001542012
2026:UHC:7963
the accident occurred due to his negligence.
12. The appellant has also relied upon the
acquittal of the driver of the offending vehicle in the
criminal proceedings. However, such acquittal, by itself,
cannot be treated as conclusive of the issue of negligence
in the claim proceedings. The Tribunal was required to
examine the evidence available before it and, upon such
consideration, has recorded a finding that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending car. This finding does not suffer from any
perversity warranting interference in appeal.
13. So far as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,45,014/-
towards medical expenses, Rs.54,000/- towards 54%
permanent disability and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of
income, totalling Rs.3,17,014/-. The assessment is based
on the material available on record and no ground has
been made out warranting interference with the same.
14. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal. The appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal is affirmed. The
Tribunal is directed to release the amount, including the
statutory deposit, in favour of claimant-respondent as
per rules. Needless to say that amount already released
in favour of the claimant shall be given due credit.
15. Let a copy of this judgment along with TCR be
transmitted to the Court concerned.
16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
( Pankaj Purohit, J .)
31.08.2026
Rdang
Digitally signed by RAJEEV DANG
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=963da6fc6df8dbb91944e0c58b9ed259ec3d800f419a119
9f15a3961c8ca2957, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B81F043D778B37D74D
2DB7200F2DABC7ABCC1CA358D, cn=RAJEEV DANG
Date: 2026.09.07 16:45:51 +05'30'
RAJEEV DANG
5