THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SMT. TAHIRA

UKHC010013472012

2026:UHC:7860


HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 605 of 2012
st
31 August, 2026

The New India Assurance Company Limited
--Appellant

Versus
Smt. Tahira and 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. Shubhr Rastogi, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 5/claimants.
Mr. Tapan Singh, learned Counsel for respondent nos.6 and 7.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12.10.2012 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge,
Haridwar in MACP No.150 of 2008, Smt. Tahira and
others v. Inder Mohan and others.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on
31.08.2008, the deceased Manga, aged about 28 years,
was travelling on his bicycle towards Haridwar when
Truck No. HR-26GA-0967, allegedly being driven rashly
and negligently, collided with his bicycle near Jagjeetpur
Bus Stand, Haridwar. The deceased sustained grievous
injuries and subsequently succumbed to them. The
claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed a
claim petition seeking compensation. The appellant-
Insurance Company contested the claim and disputed its
liability, inter alia , on the ground of breach of policy
conditions and absence of a valid permit. The learned
Tribunal, vide judgment and award dated 12.10.2012,
1

UKHC010013472012

2026:UHC:7860

held the truck driver negligent and awarded
Rs.4,66,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum in
favour of the claimants and against the appellant-
Insurance Company, giving rise to the present appeal.
3. The claimants pleaded that on 31.08.2008, the
deceased Manga was travelling on his bicycle towards
Haridwar when Truck No. HR-26GA-0967, driven by
respondent No.7 rashly and negligently, collided with his
bicycle near Jagjeetpur Bus Stand. He sustained grievous
injuries and died while being taken for treatment. It was
pleaded that the deceased was aged about 28 years and
was earning approximately Rs.6,000/- per month as a
mason. The claimants, being his widow, minor children
and parents, claimed compensation from the owner,
driver and insurer of the offending vehicle.
4. The owner and driver, in their joint written
statement, denied the accident as alleged and disputed
the involvement of the truck. They pleaded that
respondent No.2 was a skilled driver holding a valid
driving licence and that no accident had occurred due to
his rash or negligent driving. They consequently denied
liability to pay any compensation.
5. The Insurance Company contested the claim
and denied its liability. It was pleaded that the vehicle
was required to be operated with valid and effective
documents, including a valid permit, and that there was
a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. The Company also disputed the claimants'
allegations regarding the accident and negligence and
contended that it could not be saddled with liability in
the absence of a valid permit on the date of the accident.
2

UKHC010013472012

2026:UHC:7860


6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the
Tribunal framed following issues:
A. Whether the vehicle Truck No. HR-26GA-0967,
while being driven rashly and negligently, collided
with the cycle of the deceased Manga at Jagjeetpur
Bus Stand, Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar
at about 8:30 A.M. on 31.08.2008, which resulted in
injuries to the deceased and subsequently his death?
B. Whether the accident happened due to negligence
of the deceased himself?
C. Whether the vehicle Truck No. HR-26GA-0967 was
not driven with valid and effective documents
including driving licence at the time of accident?
D. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the
petitioners entitled and against whom, the
respondents?

7. While deciding issues no. 1 & 2 the Tribunal,
after appreciating relevant material and oral testimony of
PW-2 and PW-3, held that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of Truck No. HR-26GA-
0967 by its driver. The Tribunal found the testimony of
the defence witness/owner insufficient to displace the
evidence led by the claimants. Accordingly, Issue No. 1
was decided in favour of the claimants and Issue No. 2
against the respondents, holding that the deceased was
not himself negligent.
8. While deciding issue no. 3 the Tribunal held
that the truck was being driven with valid and effective
documents on the date of the accident. Relying upon the
permit verification report produced by the Insurance
3

UKHC010013472012

2026:UHC:7860

Company itself, it found that the National Permit was
valid on 31.08.2008, the date of the accident. Thus, the
plea of breach of permit conditions was rejected and
Issue No. 3 was decided against the Insurance Company.
9. While deciding issue no. 4 for determining
compensation, the Tribunal assessed the deceased's
annual income at Rs.36,000/-, deducted 1/4th towards
his personal expenses, and treated Rs.27,000/- per
annum as the contribution to the family. Applying a
multiplier of 17, the loss of dependency was assessed at
Rs.4,59,000/-. A further sum of Rs.2,000/- towards
funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of
consortium were awarded, making the total
compensation Rs. 4,66,000/-.
10. Accordingly, the claim petition was partly
allowed, and the Insurance Company was directed to pay
Rs.4,66,000/- with 9% annual interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition till actual payment.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record, the principal challenge raised by
the appellant-Insurance Company is regarding the
validity of the permit of the offending vehicle. The record
shows that Truck No. HR-26GA-0967 was covered by a
National Permit valid from 17.03.2006 to 27.05.2009,
whereas the accident occurred on 31.08.2008, during the
subsistence of the said permit. In the face of a subsisting
National Permit, the mere expiry of the temporary
authorisation issued by the State, by itself, cannot be
treated as establishing that the vehicle was being plied
without a valid permit, particularly when no material has
been brought on record to show that the National Permit
4

UKHC010013472012

2026:UHC:7860

was cancelled, suspended or otherwise rendered
ineffective on the date of the accident. The plea of breach
of permit conditions, therefore, cannot be accepted. The
judgment relied upon by the appellant i.e., reported in
AIR 2005 Ker 221 is not binding precedent upon this
Court and therefore would not be attracted. The finding
of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.3, therefore, calls for
no interference. The finding regarding rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle is based upon proper
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, and
no perversity or illegality has been demonstrated by the
appellant. Likewise, the compensation of Rs.4,66,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal has not been shown to be
excessive or otherwise erroneous so as to warrant
interference.
12. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment and award.
13. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
The judgment and award dated 12.10.2012 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge,
Haridwar in MAC No.150 of 2008, Smt. Tahira and
others Vs. Indermohan Sachdeva and others, is affirmed.
Consequence would follow in favour of respondents.
14. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.


( .)
Pankaj Purohit, J
31.08.2026
Rdang
RAJEEV DANG
Digitally signed by RAJEEV DANG
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=963da6fc6df8dbb91944e0c58b9ed259ec3d800f419a1199f15a3961c8ca2957,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B81F043D778B37D74D2DB7200F2DABC7ABCC1CA3
58D, cn=RAJEEV DANG
Date: 2026.09.07 16:47:20 +05'30'
5