ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs DEEPESH RAWAT
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010101512014
2026:UHC:7927
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
AO/363/2014
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
--Petitioner
Versus
Deepesh Rawat and Others
--Respondents
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. A.K. Arya, learned counsel for
the Insurance Company/Appellant.
Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1/claimant.
Mr. Himanshu Negi, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Navnish Negi, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. The present Appeal from Order has been
preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company
assailing the judgment and award dated
12.06.2014, passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Kotdwar, in M.A.C.P. No. 46 of 2011,
whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded
compensation of ₹ 5,40,875/- in favour of
respondent no. 1/claimant.
3. Brief facts of the case, as borne out from
the record, are that a claim petition was filed
by the claimant/respondent no. 1 before the
M.A.C.T. alleging therein that on 07.04.2011,
at about 9:00 p.m., respondent no. 1/claimant
was travelling on his Scooty bearing
registration No. UK-12B-1317 from Kotdwar
towards village Sitabpur. On the way, a taxi
Jeep bearing registration No. U.A.-12-7351,
being driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, overtook the Scooty of the
claimant and dashed against it. As a result of
the said accident, the claimant sustained
grievous injuries, including head injuries,
which adversely affected his memory and
eyesight. Owing to the injuries suffered in the
accident, he has been unable to perform his
UKHC010101512014
2026:UHC:7927
day-to-day activities.
4. The appellant–Insurance Company has
assailed the impugned award primarily on the
ground that the claimant himself did not enter
the witness box to substantiate the averments
made in the claim petition and that the
accident in question was not proved by reliable
evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-
insurance company has reiterated the
aforesaid submissions, whereas learned
counsel appearing for respondent no.
1/claimant has supported the findings
recorded by the learned Tribunal.
6. This Court has carefully considered the
rival submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and has perused the record of the
learned Tribunal, including the pleadings, oral
evidence and other documents brought on
record.
7. So far as the occurrence of the accident
and involvement of the offending vehicle are
concerned, PW-5, who was an eye-witness to
the incident, has categorically stated that the
claimant was hit by a white-coloured taxi Jeep
bearing registration No. U.A.-12-7351 and,
thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. His
testimony with regard to the involvement of
the offending vehicle and the occurrence of the
accident has remained uncontroverted in
material particulars during cross-examination.
The appellant–Insurance Company has also
failed to bring on record any cogent evidence
to discredit the testimony of the said eye-
witness. Thus, the factum of the claimant
having sustained injuries in the accident
involving vehicle bearing registration No. U.A.-
12-7351 stands duly established.
8. The contention of the appellant/
Insurance Company that respondent no. 1/
claimant himself did not appear before the
learned Tribunal to depose in support of his
claim petition also does not merit acceptance,
inasmuch as, the mother of the claimant
appeared as a witness and categorically stated
UKHC010101512014
2026:UHC:7927
on oath that, owing to the serious injuries,
particularly the head injury sustained in the
accident, the claimant was not in a position to
depose before the Court. The said statement
finds support from the medical certificate
available on record. Significantly, her
testimony on this aspect has not been
effectively controverted in cross-examination.
Further, the appellant–Insurance Company
has not produced any material or
documentary evidence to establish that the
injuries suffered by the claimant were not
attributable to the accident in question.
9. The learned Tribunal, after considering
the evidence available on record, has recorded
a categorical finding that the offending vehicle
was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner and that the accident occurred on
account of the actionable negligence of its
driver. Such finding is based upon the
evidence brought on record and does not
suffer from any perversity or material illegality
warranting interference by this Court in
appellate jurisdiction.
10. So far as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded
a sum of ₹ 5,40,875/- in favour of the
claimant. This Court finds that the
compensation so awarded is just and
reasonable and does not call for any
interference.
11. The principles governing determination of
just compensation in motor accident claim
cases have also been authoritatively settled by
the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. On an overall
consideration of the material available on
record, this Court finds that the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is in
accordance with the settled principles and is
neither excessive nor arbitrary.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this
Court finds no merit in the present Appeal
UKHC010101512014
2026:UHC:7927
from Order. The judgment and award dated
12.06.2014, passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, Kotdwar, in M.A.C.P. No. 46 of 2011,
does not warrant any interference.
13. Accordingly, the present Appeal from
Order is dismissed.
14. The statutory amount, if deposited by the
appellant at the time of filing of the present
appeal, shall be remitted to the learned
Tribunal concerned for adjustment towards
the awarded amount. The balance amount, if
any, shall be released in favour of the claimant
in terms of the directions contained in the
award passed by the learned Tribunal.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
02-09-2026
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=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c
12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED
00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.09.02 17:44:37 +05'30'