[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
AO/91/2025 on 11 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11049
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
A.O. No.91 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Tejas Agarrwal, Advocate for
the appellant.
Mr. Mahavir Kohli, Advocate for
respondent nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate
for respondent no.3.
2. This Appeal from Order has been
filed by the appellant challenging the
judgment and order dated 08.11.2023
passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal in
M.A.C.P. No.57 of 2019, whereby the
learned Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition filed by the appellant seeking
compensation of ₹31,00,000/- for the
injuries allegedly sustained by him in a
road accident dated 20.11.2017 along
with interest at the rate of 18% per
annum.
3. According to the appellant, on
20.11.2017, he was travelling as a pillion
rider on motorcycle No. UK-07-AD-3355
and was en route to his work at Deepak
Wedding Point, Kotdwar. It was alleged
that near BEL Road, Village Ratanpur,
Kotdwar, Truck No. UP-20-AT-0227,
being driven rashly and negligently,
dashed into the motorcycle, as a result of
which the appellant sustained grievous
injuries. The appellant, who was working
as a cook earning ₹15,000/- per month,
claimed that he suffered permanent
disability to the extent of 40%, thereby
entitling him to compensation.
2025:UHC:11049
4. After exchange of pleadings, the
learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the
evidence, found that the appellant had
failed to prove that the alleged accident
was caused by the said truck. The
Tribunal observed that though the
appellant had mentioned Truck No. UP-
20-AT-0227 as the offending vehicle, the
Investigating Officer, after a detailed
investigation, found that the said truck
was not involved in the incident and
submitted a closure report. The appellant
did not file any protest petition or move
for rejection of the closure report before
the competent criminal court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the Tribunal erred in
holding that the said truck was not
involved in the accident, contending that
the driver of the truck had admitted that
he was driving the vehicle on the date
and at the place in question. It is further
submitted that the learned Tribunal
wrongly disbelieved the disability
certificate issued by the Medical Board
without properly appreciating the
medical evidence on record.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the findings
of the Tribunal were fully justified. It is
argued that all documents of the vehicle
were valid and in order and that there
was no evidence of rash or negligent
driving. It is further argued that once the
Investigating Officer, after investigation,
had submitted a closure report finding
that the truck was not involved in the
accident, and the claimant had not
challenged such report, the said finding
attained finality and could not be
reopened before the Tribunal.
2025:UHC:11049
7. On careful examination of the
record, it is evident that the closure
report submitted by the Investigating
Officer concluded that Truck No. UP-20-
AT-0227 was not involved in the alleged
accident. The appellant has not brought
on record any material to discredit the
said finding. No protest petition was ever
filed by the appellant before the
Magistrate against the acceptance of the
closure report. In the absence of such a
challenge, the Tribunal was justified in
holding that the appellant failed to prove
the involvement of the said truck in the
accident.
8. It is a settled principle that the
burden of proof in a claim petition under
the Motor Vehicles Act lies squarely upon
the claimant to establish that the
accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
Mere allegations without corroborative
evidence cannot fasten liability on the
owner or insurer.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Premlata Shukla & others, reported in
(2007) 13 SCC 476, has categorically
held that where the claimant fails to
establish the involvement of the
offending vehicle or negligence on the
part of its driver, the Tribunal has no
option but to dismiss the claim petition.
10. In the present case, the appellant
has failed to discharge his burden of
proving the involvement of the alleged
offending vehicle or the negligent act of
its driver. Furthermore, the disability
certificate was rightly disbelieved by the
Tribunal, as it was not proved in
accordance with law and no medical
2025:UHC:11049
expert was examined to substantiate the
nature and extent of disability.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion,
this Court finds no perversity or illegality
in the impugned judgment dated
08.11.2023 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotdwar,
District Pauri Garhwal.
12. The appeal is devoid of merits and
is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
11.12.2025
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3
a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001,
JAISWAL
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109
CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN
JAISWAL
Date: 2025.12.11 17:42:49 +05'30'
