Uttarakhand High Court
Reliance General Insurance vs Anil Nath And Others on 26 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.503 of 2012
Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd. .....Appellant
Vs.
Anil Nath and others .....Respondents
With
Appeal from Order No.35 of 2013
Anil Nath .....Appellant
Vs.
Sohan Singh Pundir and others .....Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal with Mr. Bharat Tewari, Advocates for the
appellants.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Mr. Deepa Rawat, Advocate for respondent no.4.
Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the formal party.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
These two appeals arise out of a common motor vehicle accident and common judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal and involve identical questions of fact and law. Accordingly, both the appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
2. The appeal being AO No.503 of 2012 has been preferred by the Insurance Company seeking absolution from liability, whereas AO No.35 of 2013 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of ₹1,60,265/-.
3. These proceedings arose out of a motor accident claim petition instituted before the Motor 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, District Pithoragarh, wherein the claimant sought compensation for grievous injuries sustained in a road accident dated 29.06.2009. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, decided the claim petition by judgment and award dated 04.08.2012. The present narration records the factual background, pleadings of the parties, issues framed by the Tribunal and the findings returned thereon.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 29th June 2009 at about 05:00 P.M., the claimant-Anil Nath was travelling on a motorcycle of his friend as a pillon- rider bearing registration no. UK-07-U-9313 near Van Vibhag Post, Raywala, Dehradun. At the said place, an Indigo car bearing registration no.UA-09-4848, coming from the opposite direction, collided with the motorcycle. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries, including severe injuries to his right hand and other parts of the body. He was initially taken to Jolly Grant Hospital, Dehradun and thereafter referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh, where he underwent prolonged treatment including surgeries. The claimant asserted that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered permanent disability, affecting his physical capacity and quality of life. Consequently, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
5. The claimant pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Indigo car by its driver. It was specifically averred that the car was being driven at a high speed and on the 3 wrong side of the road, resulting in a head-on collision with the motorcycle. The claimant further pleaded that he sustained grievous injuries, remained hospitalized for a long duration, underwent multiple surgical procedures including amputation of his right hand, and suffered permanent disability assessed at 80%. It was stated that the injuries caused immense physical pain, mental agony and loss of enjoyment of life. The claimant claimed compensation under various heads including medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and permanent disability.
6. The owner of the Indigo car filed his written statements denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It was pleaded that his vehicle was being driven carefully and in accordance with traffic rules. According to him, the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider. It was also pleaded that the vehicle was duly insured and that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident.
7. The insurance company filed a separate written statement contesting the claim petition. While the insurance company did not specifically deny the occurrence of the accident, it disputed its liability to pay compensation. It was pleaded that the claimant and other occupants (riders) of the motorcycle were travelling in violation of statutory provisions. The insurance company further raised objections regarding the validity of the driving licence and alleged breach of policy conditions. The quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed as excessive and unsupported by reliable evidence.
48. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues:
(1). Whether on 29.06.2009 at about 05:00 P.M., at the place DPO No.1, in front of the Forest Department, Raywala, District Dehradun, while the claimant Anil Nath, during the course of his duty, was travelling by sitting on the pillion seat of motorcycle bearing registration no. UK-07-U-9313 towards Pithoragarh, the driver of Indigo car bearing registration no.UA-09-4848, by driving the vehicle at high speed and negligently from the opposite side, dashed against the said motorcycle, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries?
(2). Whether in causing the aforesaid accident, there was also negligence on the part of the driver of motorcycle bearing registration no.UK-07-U-9313, and if so, what would be its effect?
(3). Whether the vehicle bearing registration no.UA-09-
4848 involved in the aforesaid accident was insured with respondent no.3-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, and whether the vehicle documents and the driving licence of the driver were valid; if so, what would be its effect?
(4). Whether the motorcycle bearing registration no.UK- 07-U-9313 involved in the aforesaid accident was insured with respondent no.6-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and whether the vehicle documents and the driving licence of the driver were valid; if so, what would be its effect?
(5). Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation if so, from which respondent and to what extent?
9. While deciding Issue No.1, the Tribunal considered the oral testimony of the claimant and other witnesses, along with documentary evidence including the FIR, site plan, charge-sheet and medical records. The Tribunal found that the claimant's version regarding the manner of the accident remained consistent and credible. The Tribunal held that the Indigo car bearing registration no.UA-09-4848 was being driven rashly and negligently and had come from the opposite direction, colliding with 5 the motorcycle. The injuries sustained by the claimant were found to be a direct result of the said collision. Accordingly, Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the claimant, holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Indigo car.
10. While dealing with Issue No.2, the Tribunal examined whether the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration no.UK-07-U-9313 was also negligent. The Tribunal took note of the evidence on record, including statements regarding the number of persons travelling on the motorcycle at the time of the accident. The Tribunal recorded that more than the permissible number of persons were travelling on the motorcycle and that contradictory statements had been made by the claimant and witnesses in this regard. But it was recorded by the learned Tribunal that could not be the cause of accident always. On this basis, the Tribunal held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider. Accordingly, Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the claimant, holding that no contributory negligence was established against the motor-cyclist.
11. While deciding Issue No.3, the Tribunal examined the insurance policy, vehicle documents and driving licence relating to the Indigo car bearing registration no.UA-09-4848. The Tribunal found that the said vehicle was duly insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited on the date of the accident. The Tribunal further held that the driver of the Indigo car possessed a valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle documents were in order. Accordingly, Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the claimant, fastening the 6 liability upon respondent no.3, the insurance company i.e. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. of the Indica Car.
12. While deciding Issue No.4, the Tribunal considered the evidence relating to motorcycle bearing registration no. UK-07-U-9313, including the insurance policy and driving licence of the rider. The Tribunal found that the motorcycle was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and that the relevant documents were valid. Therefore, the issue no.4 was decided in favour of claimants.
13. While deciding Issue No.5, the Tribunal assessed the nature of injuries, medical evidence, disability certificate and expenses proved on record. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant suffered grievous injuries including permanent disability, pain and mental agony. However, the Tribunal restricted the compensation under various heads and awarded a total compensation of ₹1,60,265/-, together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
14. The Tribunal held that the liability to pay the awarded compensation rested upon respondent no.3, the appellant insurance company. Accordingly, Issue No.5 was decided partly in favour of the claimant.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and having carefully perused the record of the Tribunal, this Court finds that both the appeals arise out of the same judgment and award dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 7 Pithoragarh, and therefore deserve to be decided together by this common judgment.
16. The principal contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon it, particularly in view of the fact that the claimant was found to have made false statements before the Tribunal, suppressed material facts, and attempted to mislead the Court by producing fabricated bills and by falsely asserting that only two persons were riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident.
17. This Court is unable to accept the said submission. It is a settled position of law that the liability of an insurer in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be avoided or restricted only upon proof of one or more statutory defences enumerated under Section 149(2) of the Act. The burden to establish such defences squarely lies upon the Insurance Company. In the present case, the Tribunal has categorically recorded findings that the offending vehicle (Indica Car No.UA-09-4848) was duly insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the date of the accident; the policy was valid and subsisting; no evidence was led by the insurer to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence or that there was any breach of policy conditions.
18. In the absence of proof of any statutory defence, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability merely on account of misconduct or falsehood on the part of the claimant. The law on this aspect stands authoritatively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran 8 Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297, wherein it has been held that unless a defence under Section 149(2) is strictly proved, the insurer remains statutorily liable to satisfy the award.The attempt made by the claimant to mislead the Tribunal, howsoever reprehensible, does not fall within the scope of statutory defences available to the insurer. Such conduct may legitimately influence the quantum of compensation, but it cannot result in exoneration of the insurer from liability. Accordingly, this Court finds no legal infirmity in the Tribunal fastening liability upon the Insurance Company.
19. The claimant has sought enhancement of compensation primarily on the ground that he suffered 80% permanent disability, including amputation of the right hand, and therefore the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. At the outset, it must be noted that the Tribunal has not disputed the nature or extent of the injuries suffered by the claimant. The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting in 80% permanent disability, which stands duly proved by medical testimony and disability certificate. However, the determination of "just compensation" does not depend solely upon the percentage of physical disability. The correct legal approach has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, wherein it has been held that the Tribunal must assess:
1. the nature of disability,
2. its impact on earning capacity, 9
3. the avocation of the claimant prior to the accident,
4. and whether the disability has resulted in loss of future earning capacity.
20. Applying the above principles, the Tribunal has recorded a clear finding that the claimant failed to establish any loss of future income. The claimant was working in the P.A.C. department and continued to receive his salary even after the accident. No evidence was led to show reduction in pay, loss of service benefits, or termination from employment.
21. Thus, the Tribunal rightly declined to award compensation under the head of loss of future earning capacity. This Court cannot overlook the serious findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding the conduct of the claimant. The Tribunal has meticulously analysed the evidence and has arrived at the conclusion that- three persons were riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident, contrary to the claimant's assertion that only two persons were riding; the claimant produced a caretaker bill of ₹50,000/-, whereas in his own statement he had earlier claimed to have paid only ₹5,000/- each; the alleged caretaker bill was unsupported by any independent evidence and bore only the claimant's own signature; false statements were made on oath, and material facts were suppressed.
22. The Tribunal has rightly held that such conduct disentitles the claimant from claiming compensation under exaggerated or unproved heads. This approach is fully consistent with the observation of 10 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra) that the Tribunal must not be a silent spectator and must actively scrutinise the evidence to ensure that only "just compensation" is awarded.
23. That said, this Court has independently examined whether, notwithstanding the claimant's misconduct, the compensation awarded under conventional heads warrants marginal interference. The Tribunal has awarded - ₹40,265/- towards medical expenses (proved by bills), ₹20,000/- towards attendant expenses, ₹1,00,000/- towards pain, suffering, and loss of amenities of life.
24. Given the nature of injuries, prolonged treatment, amputation, and permanent disability, the amount of ₹1,00,000/- awarded towards pain, suffering, and loss of amenities cannot be said to be shockingly low so as to warrant interference. On the contrary, the Tribunal has already exercised considerable discretion in awarding this amount despite the claimant's lack of honesty.
25. Learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the judgment passed in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 389. But in the said case, the Supreme Court enhanced compensation where the claimant had suffered total loss of career prospects. However, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts, as in the present case no loss of livelihood or income has been established. This Court is therefore of the considered view that no further enhancement is legally justified.
1126. In view of the foregoing discussion:
A. AO No. 503 of 2012, filed by the Insurance Company, lacks merit and is hereby dismissed, as no statutory defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act has been established.
B. AO No. 35 of 2013, filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, is also dismissed, as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal represents just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case, and the claimant's own conduct disentitles him from any further indulgence. The award dated 04.08.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, awarding a total compensation of ₹1,60,265/- along with interest as directed, is hereby affirmed. The claimant is entitled to receive said compensation of Rs.1,60,265/- along with interest @ of 8% per annum accrued thereon, if not already received or adjusting the amount received by him.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.02.2026 SK