RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs SMT. NEELAM NEGI
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.451 of 2018
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. -- Appellant
Versus
Smt. Neelam Negi and others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Present:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Mr. Harshit Bisht and Mr. Kamal Pandey,
learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)
By means of this appeal filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer/appellant has
assailed the judgment and order dated 24.09.2018
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 4th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in M.A.C.P. No.
80/2017, Smt. Neelam Negi and others vs. Jagmal Singh
and others, by which an amount of Rs. 74,71,288/- with
interest at the rate of 6% has been awarded as
compensation by the learned Tribunal.
2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of the
present appeal are as follows:
i. The claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was filed by the
1
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
claimants/respondents on account of the
death of Narendra Singh Negi in a motor
accident which occurred on 25.03.2017
near Rawat Medical Store, Haridwar Road,
Dehradun. In the claim petition, it has been
averred that the deceased, Narendra Singh
Negi, aged 35 years, while on duty as a
policeman on 25th March, 2017, was riding
his motorcycle bearing registration number
UK-07BU-0912, when a bus bearing
number HP-17D-5124, which was going
towards Haridwar from Dehradun and was
being driven rashly and negligently by its
driver, hit the motorcycle, as a result of
which the deceased sustained injuries and
died on the way to the hospital. In the claim
petition, it has been averred that the
deceased was serving in the Uttarakhand
Police and was drawing a monthly salary of
Rs. 37,000/-, and compensation was sought
on account of his accidental death.
ii. The claim petition was opposed by the
insurance company as well as the bus driver
and the bus owner, and the averments
2
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
made in the claim petition were largely
refuted. Inter alia, it was contended by the
insurer that the accident occurred on
account of contributory negligence.
iii. The claim petition was finally adjudicated by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / 4th
Additional District Judge, Dehradun, vide
judgment and order dated 24.09.2018,
wherein, on Issue No. 1, the learned
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
accident occurred on account of the driver
of bus number HP-17D-5124 driving rashly
and negligently and hitting the motorcycle of
the deceased from behind, and that the
deceased died on account of the injuries
sustained in the said accident on
25.03.2017.
iv. On Issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal came
to the conclusion that, on the date of the
accident, i.e., 25.03.2017, all the documents
of the bus, i.e., the RC, permit, fitness
certificate, temporary permit, tax, etc., were
3
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
valid, and the bus was being driven with all
valid documents.
v. Issue No. 3, pertaining to compensation,
was decided to the effect that the annual
income of the deceased would be Rs.
3,08,387/-, and, on account of the age of
the deceased, a multiplier of 16 was applied.
The compensation was assessed at Rs.
49,34,192/- and, after adding the other
heads and making an addition on account of
future prospects, etc., the total
compensation was assessed at Rs.
74,71,288/- along with interest at the rate
of 6% per annum.
3. Assailing the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 24.09.2018, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.
Pulak Agarwal, would submit that it is a case of
contributory negligence. The contention with regard to
contributory negligence was, in fact, raised in para 7 of
the WS. He further submitted that the deceased, who was
riding the motorcycle, was not wearing a helmet and that
it was a clear case of contributory negligence on the part
of the deceased. Hence, the Tribunal erred in not
4
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
deducting the appropriate amount on account of
contributory negligence.
4. Also assailing the quantum of compensation,
learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, Mr. Pulak
Agarwal, would submit that the wife of the deceased was
getting a family pension; hence, the addition of 50%
towards future prospects to the income of the deceased
was inappropriate. He would thus submit that the appeal
deserves to be allowed on the aspect of the quantum of
compensation as well as on the aspect of contributory
negligence, and that the compensation deserves to be
reduced accordingly.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, would submit
that no specific issue was framed regarding contributory
negligence, though the same was raised in paragraph 7 of
the W.S. He would further submit that no issue regarding
contributory negligence was pressed on behalf of the
insurance company; therefore, it is not open to the
insurer/appellant to raise the issue of contributory
negligence at the appellate stage. He would further
submit that the motorcycle on which the deceased was
riding was hit from behind by the offending school bus.
5
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
6. He would refer to the testimony of PW-3, which
has been taken note of by the learned Tribunal while
disposing of Issue No. 1, stating that PW-3 was an
eyewitness who stated that on the date of the incident
i.e. 25.03.2017, when he was passing by on his
motorcycle from the place of the incident, he saw that the
driver of a yellow-coloured school bus bearing number
HP-17D-5124 was driving the bus and that it hit the
motorcycle of the deceased from behind. He would thus
submit that there is evidence regarding the accident and
the manner in which it occurred. He would further
submit that it is clear from the record, and he would
draw the attention of the Court to para 11 of the
impugned judgment, wherein, inter alia, the charge sheet
has been brought on record along with the list of
documents. He would submit that the charge sheet was
submitted by the police after a thorough investigation of
the aforesaid accident.
7. Learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents has also drawn the attention of
the Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb
and another, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, and
6
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
has drawn the attention of the Court to para 4 thereof,
which is being extracted hereunder for ready reference:
“4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has
been filed and the driver has been held negligent,
no further evidence is required to prove that the bus
was being negligently driven by the bus driver.
Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that
will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased
due to negligence of the bus driver.”
8. Learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents has also drawn the attention of
the Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Meera Bai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 992,
and has drawn the attention of the Court to para 4
thereof, which is being extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a
witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR
having been lodged and the charge sheet filed
against the owner driver of the offending vehicle,
we are of the opinion that there could be no finding
that negligence was not established.
7
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
9. While placing reliance upon the judgment in
the case of Ranjeet and another (supra), learned counsel
for the claimants/respondents would submit that it is
settled law that once a charge sheet has been filed and
the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is
required to prove that the bus was negligently driven by
the bus driver. He would further submit that even if the
eyewitnesses are not examined, that would not be fatal to
proving the death of the deceased due to the negligence
of the bus driver. Hence, he would submit that the aspect
of contributory negligence, as is being tried to be raised
by learned counsel for the insurance company, is not
worthy of acceptance.
10. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the
insurer/appellant would submit that in para 7 of the
W.S., a specific plea regarding contributory negligence
was taken by the insurance company at the very
inception. Para 7 of the W.S. is being extracted
hereunder for ready reference:
“7. That as is evident from the pleadings there
were two vehicles involved in the alleged accident
therefore the alleged accident if any occurred due to
8
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
the contributory negligence of the alleged
deceased.”
11. He would further submit that the plea of
contributory negligence was considered while deciding
Issue No. 1, and he has drawn the attention of the Court
to para 16 of the impugned judgment. He would submit
that, in para 16 of the impugned judgment, the learned
Tribunal had the occasion to deal with the aspect of
contributory negligence, and the learned Tribunal has
returned a finding that though PW-3 Pankaj Rawat is
stated to be an eyewitness, his name does not find a
mention in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet, and,
therefore, it would not be justified in relying upon the
testimony of PW-3 Pankaj Rawat.
12. He would further submit that, in para no. 16 of
the said judgment, it has been specifically adverted to by
the learned Tribunal that, regarding contributory
negligence, the relative contributory negligence ought to
have been determined. However, a close scrutiny of
paragraph number 16 of the impugned judgment would
reveal that the contentions regarding contributory
negligence, as raised by learned counsel for the
insurer/appellant, did not find favour with the learned
9
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal has returned a
finding that, though the contention regarding
contributory negligence has been raised by the insurance
company, no evidence has been adduced by the insurer
in this regard. The learned Tribunal has also relied upon
a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dinesh Kumar J. v. National Insurance Company
Limited, reported in 2018 (1) SCC 750, stating therein
that if the insurance company does not adduce any
evidence regarding the contributory negligence of the
deceased, then it would be deemed that the deceased did
not have any contributory negligence in the accident.
13. On account of the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, the main points for
determination that arise for determination before this
Court are as follows:-
i. Whether there was any contributory negligence of
the deceased? If yes, its effect?
ii. Whether the 50% addition in the income towards
the future prospects granted by the learned tribunal
is inappropriate as being contended by the insurer?
10
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
14. So far as point for determination No. 1 is
concerned, on one hand, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Pulak Agarwal,
Advocate, has contended that it is a case of contributory
negligence and that the learned Tribunal has not
accounted for the contributory negligence of the
deceased; hence, there ought to have been a deduction
on account of contributory negligence.
15. He has further submitted that, in para 7 of the
written statement, a specific plea regarding contributory
negligence was taken by the insurer right from the very
inception. He has further drawn the attention of the
Court to para 16 of the impugned judgment, where the
aspect of contributory negligence has been dealt with by
the Tribunal. However, learned counsel for the appellant
would submit that the said plea has been decided
wrongly.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, would submit
that PW-3 has deposed that the bus hit the deceased
from behind on the fateful day. He would further place
reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
11
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
Court in the cases of Ranjeet & Anr. (supra) and Meera
Bai & Ors. (supra).
17. After considering the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that, though
the plea of contributory negligence was taken at the very
inception by the insurer/appellant, the issue of
contributory negligence was not specifically pressed;
hence, no separate issue was framed regarding the
aspect of contributory negligence. However, this aspect of
contributory negligence was specifically dealt with by the
learned Tribunal while disposing of Issue No. 1, and, on
the aspect of contributory negligence, the learned
Tribunal did not find favour with the contentions as
raised by the insurance company.
18. This Court finds force in the submissions of
the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents,
particularly in view of the judgments cited in the cases of
Ranjeet & Anr. (supra) and Meera Bai & Ors. (supra).
From the said judgments, it is clear that, once a charge
sheet has been filed and the driver has been held
negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that
the bus was being driven negligently by the driver of the
offending vehicle. Also, from the judgment of the Hon'ble
12
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar J. (supra), it
is clear that, once evidence is not adduced regarding
contributory negligence, the aspect of contributory
negligence has to be decided against the insurer. In such
view of the matter, point for determination No. 1 deserves
to be answered against the insurance company.
19. Point for determination No. 2 is regarding the
quantum of compensation, wherein the learned Tribunal
has granted a 50% addition towards future prospects.
Learned counsel for the insurer/appellant has contended
that, since the wife of the deceased was getting a family
pension, she is not entitled to the 50% addition towards
future prospects.
20. This issue is no longer res integra, inasmuch
as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sebastiani
Lakra v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2019
(17) SCC 465, has specifically held that the receipt of
pension or employment by the kin of the deceased does
not disentitle them to compensation. Hence, in view of
the clear position of law as enunciated by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sebastiani Lakra (supra), point for
determination No. 2 also deserves to be answered against
the appellant/insurer.
13
UKHC010181172018
2026:UHC:8147
21. In such view of the matter, since points for
determination Nos. 1 and 2 have been decided against
the insurance/appellant, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
22. The appellant/insurer is directed to remit the
balance of the compensation amount to the learned
Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today. The
Registry is also directed to remit the mandatory deposit
to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.
23. The original record be transmitted to the
concerned Tribunal.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
10.09.2026
BS
BALWAN
T SINGH
Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a1
7c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB
553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA9
0, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2026.09.10 17:59:07 +05'30'
14