THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs SHRI HARVANSH SINGH

UKHC010007592013

2026:UHC:8299
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

SL.
Date
No.

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

AO/271/2013


The Oriental Insurance Company
Limited
--Appellant
Versus
Shri Harvansh Singh
--Respondent


Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the
appellant.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for
respondent nos.1 & 2.

2. This Appeal from Order has been
preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company assailing the judgment and
award dated 29.03.2013 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional District Judge, Khatima,
District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P.
No.452 of 2011, whereby compensation
has been awarded in favour of the
claimants on account of the death of
Ranjit Singh in a motor vehicle accident.

3. The facts, as borne out from the
record, are that on 26.11.2011, Ranjit
Singh, son of respondent no.1, was
returning home from his agricultural field.
When he reached near a poultry farm on
the paved road, a Bolero vehicle bearing
registration no. UK-06-L-2144, coming
from the side of Jhankat, allegedly struck
him while its driver was attempting to
save a child who had suddenly crossed the
road. Ranjit Singh sustained grievous

UKHC010007592013

2026:UHC:8299
injuries and succumbed to the injuries at
the spot.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company has primarily
assailed the impugned award on the
ground that the driving licence allegedly
possessed by respondent no.4 was not
valid, as per the report of the R.T.O.,
Bareilly.

5. This Court has perused the original
report submitted by the R.T.O., Bareilly.
Contrary to the submission advanced on
behalf of the appellant, the said report
records that the original Driving Licence
No.2/7/7 dated 08.12.1997, issued in
favour of respondent no.4, was in fact
issued by the R.T.O., Bareilly. Thus, the
very basis of the challenge raised by the
appellant-Insurance Company does not
find support from the original record. It is
further an admitted position that the
aforesaid driving licence was subsequently
renewed after the creation of the State of
Uttarakhand and the records pertaining to
such renewal were duly verified from the
R.T.O., Haldwani.

6. In view of the aforesaid factual
position, this Court finds no ground to
hold that respondent no.4 was driving the
vehicle without a valid and effective
driving licence. Consequently, the
challenge to the award on this count is
liable to be rejected.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the
parties have, however, jointly submitted
that there is an error in the computation
of compensation by the learned Tribunal.
It is submitted that, while determining the
loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal
has applied the multiplier of 13 by taking
into consideration the age of the

UKHC010007592013

2026:UHC:8299
parents/claimants, whereas the multiplier
is required to be determined with
reference to the age of the deceased. It is
submitted that, considering the age of the
deceased, the appropriate multiplier would
be 18.

8. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680,
has laid down the principles governing
determination of just compensation under
the Motor Vehicles Act. The compensation
is required to be fair, reasonable and just,
and the multiplier is to be applied with
reference to the age of the deceased in
accordance with the settled principles.
9. In the present case, the calculation
indicates that the monthly income of the
deceased was assessed at ₹ 3,000/-,
resulting in an annual income of
₹ 36,000/-. Since the deceased was
unmarried, 50% of the said income is
liable to be deducted towards his personal
and living expenses, thereby leaving an
annual contribution to the family of
₹ 18,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 18,
the loss of dependency is accordingly
calculated at ₹ 18,000/- × 18 =
₹ 3,24,000/-. In addition thereto, the
claimants shall be entitled to a sum of
₹ 4,500/- under the conventional heads, as
reflected in the calculation placed on
record. Accordingly, the total
compensation payable to the claimants
comes to ₹ 3,28,500/-, together with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, as
directed by the learned Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment
and award dated 29.03.2013 is modified
only to the aforesaid extent. The multiplier
of 13 applied by the learned Tribunal shall

UKHC010007592013

2026:UHC:8299
stand substituted by the multiplier of 18,
and the total compensation payable to the
claimants shall stand enhanced/
recalculated at ₹ 3,28,500/- with interest
@ 6% per annum.

11. The appellant-Insurance Company
shall be liable to satisfy the award in
terms of the modified computation is
directed to satisfy the modified award
within six weeks from the date of this
judgment, after adjusting any amount
already deposited, while all other findings
of the learned Tribunal are affirmed, being
in accordance with law.

12. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order
stands partly allowed to the aforesaid
limited extent and the impugned award is
modified accordingly.

13. The statutory amount, if any,
deposited by the appellant at the time of
filing the present appeal, shall be remitted
to the learned Tribunal concerned for
being adjusted against the amount
payable under the modified award. The
balance amount, if any, shall be released
in favour of the claimants in accordance
with the directions of the learned
Tribunal.



(Alok Mahra, J.)
16.09.2026

Arpan





ARPAN
JAISWAL
Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3
a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C510
9CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2026.09.16 16:44:26 +05'30'