[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Randhawa And Others vs Reliance on 19 December, 2025
2025:UHC:11421
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
AO No.173 of 2024
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel
for the appellant.
2. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat and Mr. Mayank
Pandey, learned counsel for respondent
nos.2 and 3.
3. The present Appeal from Order has
been preferred by the appellant-
insurance company assailing the
judgment and award dated 23.02.2024
passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / 2nd Additional District Judge,
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in
MACP No. 141 of 2019, Anantdeep
Randhawa and others vs. Reliance
General Insurance Co. and others,
whereby compensation to the tune of
₹2,05,87,028/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition has been
awarded in favour of the claimants.
4. Brief facts of the case are that on
02.12.2018, at about 10:30 p.m., the
husband of respondent no.1, namely
Pankit Sabbarwala, was travelling in his
car bearing registration no. UK-18F-0900
and reached the DS Road, T.P. Nagar
intersection from Sector-63. At that
time, a Mahindra XUV-500 bearing
registration no. DL-12-CA-1922, being
driven in a rash and negligent manner,
2025:UHC:11421
collided with the rear door of the said
vehicle. As a result of the accident,
Pankit Sabbarwala sustained grievous
injuries and was taken to Fortis Hospital,
where he succumbed to the injuries
during treatment. FIR No. 1732 of 2018
was registered at District Gautam
Buddha Nagar under Sections 279, 338,
304-A and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
The deceased was about 25 years of age
and was a young and hardworking
entrepreneur running a business under
the name "Study Overseas Consultancy".
As per his income-tax return for the year
2018, his annual income was
₹26,41,150/-. His untimely demise
caused immense mental agony and
financial loss to the claimants, who were
deprived of his love, affection and future
support.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the learned Tribunal
committed a manifest error in fastening
the entire liability upon the appellant-
insurance company. It is contended that
the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of vehicle
no. UK-18 F-0900 and that the case was
one of contributory negligence. It is
further argued that despite a specific
plea having been taken in the written
statement, the learned Tribunal failed to
frame any issue with regard to
contributory negligence and ignored the
material evidence on record.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submits that the site plan clearly
establishes contributory negligence, as
the accident occurred at a crossing.
2025:UHC:11421
According to the site plan, the vehicle of
the deceased was on the highway,
whereas the other vehicle approached
from a crossing at an angle of about 90
degrees. This crucial piece of evidence
was not properly appreciated by the
learned Tribunal while passing the
impugned award.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant
further contended that the compensation
awarded by the learned MACT is not in
conformity with the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act. It was submitted that
the Tribunal has erroneously assessed
the income of the deceased, despite the
fact that the alleged income was neither
duly proved nor supported by any cogent
evidence. It was further contended that
the Tribunal failed to consider that there
was no loss of income, as the deceased
was engaged in a family-run business,
which continued to operate even after his
demise.
8. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3
has vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant and
has supported the impugned award,
contending that the learned Tribunal has
rightly appreciated the evidence and
awarded just and reasonable
compensation.
9. This Court has heard learned
counsel for the parties and has carefully
perused the entire material available on
record. With regard to the contention of
learned counsel for the appellant that the
learned Tribunal erred in assessing the
2025:UHC:11421
income of the deceased, this Court finds
no substance in the said submission. The
claimants placed on record the Income
Tax Returns of the deceased for the
assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19
and 2019-20, which were duly proved by
PW-3, who verified the said returns with
the original records of the Income Tax
Department. On the basis of the said
documentary evidence, the Tribunal
correctly assessed the annual income of
the deceased by taking the average of
the three ITRs and rightly determined
the same to be ₹16,55,944/-. Therefore,
this Court finds no error or illegality in
the determination of the annual income
by the learned MACT.
10. As regards the further contention of
learned counsel for the appellant that
there was no loss of income on the
ground that the deceased was running a
family business, this Court finds that the
said contention is not supported by any
evidence on record. On the contrary, the
pleadings and documents clearly
establish that the deceased was the
proprietor of a firm under the name and
style of "Study Overseas Consultancy",
and the said business cannot be termed
as a family business.
11. Upon consideration of the evidence
on record, particularly the site plan, this
Court is of the view that there was some
degree of contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased. However, such
contributory negligence appears to be
marginal in nature. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the considered opinion that deduction
2025:UHC:11421
of 5% from the total awarded
compensation on account of contributory
negligence would meet the ends of
justice.
12. Accordingly, 5% of the awarded
compensation shall stand deducted
towards contributory negligence, and the
remaining compensation amount, along
with interest as awarded by the learned
Tribunal, shall be paid by the appellant-
insurance company.
13. The Appeal from Order is
accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
19.12.2025
BS
BALWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72
a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
T SINGH
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346
EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C
3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.12.20 14:27:59 +05'30'
