SMT ANJU MOHANTI vs SUKHDEEP SINGH and OTHERS
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010013992012
2026:UHC:7771
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order
SL
.
N
o.
Dat
e
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
with Signatures
AO/223/2012
Smt Anju Mohanti
--Appellant
Versus
Sukhdeep Singh And Others
--Respondent
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, learned
counsel for the appellant.
Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company.
2. The present Appeal has been preferred on
behalf of the appellant/claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Second
FTC, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 19 of 2007, Smt.
Anju Mohanti vs. Sukhdeep Singh and Others,
whereby an amount of Rs.2,90,000/- along
with interest @ 7% per annum has been
awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant.
3. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant and learned counsel for
the Insurance Company and perused the
record.
4. Briefly stated, the case of the claimant is
that the deceased, Arjun Mohanti, aged about
36 years, was travelling in a Maruti car during
the night when the said car collided with
Truck No. HR-46/A-7486. The accident
occurred at about 10:30 p.m. According to the
claimant, the offending truck had been
stationed on the road without parking lights,
indicators, reflectors or any other warning
signs. Owing to the darkness and absence of
any cautionary indication, the truck could not
be noticed by the driver of the car, namely,
Devendra Kumar Tripathi, resulting in the
collision. The deceased sustained fatal injuries
in the accident and succumbed thereto.
5. The defence of the Insurance Company
was that the offending truck had earlier met
UKHC010013992012
2026:UHC:7771
with an accident with another dumper bearing
registration No. HR-26-GA/1975 and
thereafter had been parked on the extreme left
side of the road. It was contended that the
accident occurred solely on account of rash
and negligent driving of the car, which collided
with the stationary truck from behind. The
Insurance Company, while admitting the
insurance coverage of the offending vehicle,
disputed its liability on the ground that
negligence was attributable to the deceased.
6. Upon appreciation of the evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal
recorded a finding that the accident occurred
on account of negligence of the driver of the
offending truck, who had left the vehicle
stationed on the road without taking adequate
warning or precautionary measures. The plea
of negligence or contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased was rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company has assailed the aforesaid finding
and submitted that the learned Tribunal has
erred in fastening negligence upon the driver
of Truck No. HR-46/A-7486. According to
learned counsel, the accident occurred when
the car, being driven by the deceased
Devendra Kumar Tripathi, collided with the
stationary truck from behind. It has further
been submitted that the truck had itself met
with an accident with another dumper and
both vehicles had thereafter been parked on
the left side of the road. It is, therefore,
contended that the accident was solely
attributable to the rash and negligent driving
of the deceased Devendra Kumar Tripathi and
that, in any event, there was contributory
negligence on his part.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimant has submitted that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
the offending truck. It has been pointed out
that the truck did not have back lights,
indicators or reflectors and that there was no
proper marking or cautionary indication on
UKHC010013992012
2026:UHC:7771
the road to make the stationary truck visible to
vehicles approaching from behind. Learned
counsel for the claimant has further submitted
that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is inadequate and that the amounts
awarded under the conventional heads are
also liable to be enhanced.
9. Having considered the rival submissions
and perused the evidence available on record,
this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
finding of negligence recorded by the learned
Tribunal.
10. From the evidence on record, it is not in
dispute that the offending truck was stationary
on the left side of the road after having met
with an earlier accident. However, the mere
fact that the truck was stationary would not
absolve its driver from the duty to take
reasonable precautions for the safety of other
road users. A stationary heavy vehicle on a
road, particularly during night hours, is
required to be adequately illuminated and
marked so that it may be noticed by vehicles
approaching from behind.
11. In the present case, the eyewitness has
specifically stated that the offending truck did
not have back lights, indicators or reflectors.
His testimony has not been effectively
dislodged in cross-examination. The accident
admittedly occurred at about 10:30 p.m. and,
therefore, the absence of adequate warning
signals assumes considerable significance.
12. It is also significant that although the
defence was that the truck had earlier met
with an accident and had thereafter been
parked on the extreme left side of the road, no
cogent evidence was produced by the
Insurance Company to dislodge the testimony
of the eyewitness or to establish that adequate
warning measures had been adopted by the
driver of the offending truck. The mere fact
that the car collided with the truck from
behind cannot, by itself, lead to an inference of
negligence on the part of the driver of the car.
The question of negligence has to be examined
UKHC010013992012
2026:UHC:7771
in the totality of the circumstances. In the
facts of the present case, a stationary heavy
vehicle on the road in the dead of night,
without adequate warning lights, reflectors or
cautionary signs, constituted an evident
hazard to other road users. The learned
Tribunal has, therefore, rightly concluded that
the proximate cause of the accident was the
negligent act of the driver of the offending
truck.
13. The finding of the learned Tribunal
fastening negligence upon the driver of Truck
No. HR-46/A-7486 is, accordingly, affirmed.
14. The next question, which arises for
consideration, is with regard to the quantum
of compensation.
15. Learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant submits that the learned
Tribunal, while passing the impugned award,
failed to take into consideration the future
prospects of the deceased while assessing the
loss of dependency. It is further submitted that
the amounts awarded under the conventional
heads, namely, funeral expenses, loss of
consortium and loss of estate, are also
inadequate.
16. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral
expenses, whereas the claimant is entitled to
Rs.15,000/- under the said head. Similarly, an
amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards
loss of consortium, whereas the claimant,
being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- under the said head. It is also
submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded
only Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate,
whereas the claimant is entitled to
Rs.15,000/- under the said head.
17. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that since the income of the deceased
could not be proved before the learned
Tribunal, his monthly income was rightly
assessed at Rs.3,000/- on a notional basis.
However, the learned Tribunal failed to
consider future prospects while computing the
UKHC010013992012
2026:UHC:7771
loss of dependency. It is submitted that, in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as the judgment
rendered by the Division Bench of this Court
in A.O. No. 95 of 2018, Jagdish Chandra
Pathak and Others vs. Kundan Singh Pangty
and Others, the appellant is entitled to
enhancement of compensation.
18. Considering the age of the deceased as 36
years and the notional income assessed by the
learned Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month, the
deceased would be entitled to an addition of
40% towards future prospects. Thus, the
monthly income of the deceased, including
future prospects, comes to Rs.4,200/-.
19. After deducting one-half towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased,
the annual loss of dependency is worked out
as follows:
(i) Notional income of the deceased :
Rs.3,000/- per month
(ii) Future prospects @ 40% : Rs.1,200/- per
month
(iii) Monthly income including future prospects
: Rs.4,200/-
(iv) Annual income : Rs.4,200/- × 12 =
Rs.50,400/-
(v) Deduction towards personal and living
expenses @ 1/2 of Rs. 50,400/- : Rs.25,200/-
(vi) Annual loss of dependency : Rs.25,200/-
(vii) Multiplier @ 15 : Rs.25,200/- × 15 =
Rs.3,78,000/-
In addition to the aforesaid amount, the
claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards
funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium. Thus, the total compensation
payable to the claimant is reassessed as
under:
Loss of dependency : Rs.3,78,000/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.15,000/-
Loss of estate : Rs.15,000/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.40,000/-
UKHC010013992012
2026:UHC:7771
Total : Rs.4,48,000/-
20. Accordingly, the compensation awarded
by the learned Tribunal is enhanced from
Rs.2,90,000/- to Rs.4,48,000/-. The enhanced
amount shall also carry interest at the rate of
7% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its actual payment, as
directed by the learned Tribunal.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the
Appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed to the
extent indicated above.
22. Consequently, the judgment and award
dated 28.01.2012, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Second FTC,
Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 19 of 2007, is
modified to the aforesaid extent.
23. The Insurance Company shall deposit the
enhanced amount, along with interest, before
the learned Tribunal within a period of eight
weeks from the date of production of a certified
copy of this judgment.
24. The statutory amount, if deposited by the
appellant at the time of filing of the Appeal,
shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for
adjustment towards the award amount.
Thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall disburse
the amount to the claimant in accordance with
law.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
31-08-2026
SB
SHIKSHA
BINJOLA
Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5a a08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7F F0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA
Date: 2026.09.01 18:21:17 +05'30'