Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Govindi Devi And Others on 13 November, 2025
2025:UHC:10049
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 308 of 2025
13th November, 2025
Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd.
......Appellant/Insurance Company
Versus
Govindi Devi and Others .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act') has been preferred by the
appellant/Insurance Company assailing the judgment
and award dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned
M.A.C.T./District Judge, Champawat in M.A.C.P. No.
13 of 2023, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the
claim petition and awarded a total compensation of
₹13,13,500/- in favour of the claimants.
2. There is a delay of 251 days in filing the
present appeal. A delay condonation application (I.A.
No. 1 of 2025) supported by an affidavit has been filed
by the appellant. Cause shown is found sufficient.
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay
condonation application is allowed.
3. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that
on 11.01.2023 at about 10:00 P.M., the deceased
Rajendra Ram, aged 53 years, was travelling along with
a cow and a calf in the Pickup No. UK03 CA 1653 from
Village Pati to Village Jakh, Near Kimtoli, about one
2025:UHC:10049
kilometre before Khalgada, the vehicle slipped into a
deep ravine. The deceased sustained grievous injuries
and was taken to District Hospital, Lohaghat, where he
was declared dead. The claimants filed a petition
seeking compensation of ₹32,70,000/-.
4. The parties filed oral and documentary
evidence including the copy of Adhaar Card of the
deceased, copy of family register, certified copy of G.D.,
copy of death certificate and copy of post-mortem
report etc. On behalf of the Insurance Company in
documentary evidence the copy of registration
certificate of vehicle no.UK 03CA-1653, fitness
certificate, copy of tax certificate, copy of pollution
certificate of the vehicle, thereafter, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
i) Whether on 11.01.2023, Rajendra Ram
(deceased) was travelling in the vehicle of Opposite
CA-1653 (pick-up) from Pati to his home in Village
Jakh carrying a cow and a calf from his relatives
for his own rearing. When the vehicle reached
Kimtoli about 1 kilometer before Khalgada between
Khalgada and Kimtoli on the Lohaghat Pulla
Motorway at around 10:00 P.M., the
driver/opponent No.1 caused the vehicle to crash
due to rash and negligent driving and the vehicle
crashed into a ditch. Rajendra Ram, who was
carrying his own cargo, the cow and calf sustained
serious and fatal injuries. With the help of villagers
the rescue team and police, the deceased was
brought to the Lohaghat Dub-District Hopsital in a
private vehicle, where doctors declared him dead
on arrival?
2025:UHC:10049
ii) Whether on 11.01.2023, the deceased Rajendra
Ram was travelling in the pick-up vehicle No. UK-
03-CA-1653 of Opposite Party No.1 (Vikas Singh
Patni) from Pati to Village Jakh, carrying his own
cow and calf, and whether the vehicle, driven
rashly and negligently by Opposite Party No.2, met
with an accident near Kimtoli at about 10:00 P.M.,
resulting in the vehicle falling into a ditch and
causing fatal injuries to the deceased, who was
declared dead on arrival at the Lohaghat Sub-
District Hospital.
iii) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of Opposite Party No.2, and if
so, what were the consequences thereof?
iv) Whether Opposite Party No.2, the driver of the
vehicle, was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence at the time of the accident and was
driving in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, and if
so, what is its legal effect?
v) Whether there was any breach of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy by the vehicle
owner.
vi) Whether the vehicle was duly and effectively
insured with Edelweiss General Insurance
Company Ltd. for unlimited third-party liability on
the date, time, and place of the accident.
vii) Whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation for the death of Rajendra Ram in the
said accident, and if so, from whom and to what
amount.
5. After considering the pleadings and evidence
decided the issues, so framed, in detailed and passed
the aforesaid impugned order.
2025:UHC:10049
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the Tribunal committed a manifest error as
the Tribunal without considering the facts and evidence
of the case has passed the impugned award; that, the
Tribunal has not taken into consideration that the
alleged accident did not occur due to rash and
negligent driving; rather, the vehicle fell into the ravine
while avoiding a boulder; that, no evidence was
produced that a cow and calf were recovered from the
accident site. He would further submit that learned
Tribunal ignored ocular testimony of PW-2; that,
learned Tribunal wrongly assessed notional income as
₹15,000/- per month without proof, despite
Government notification fixing notional income at
₹8,331/-; that, Tribunal erred in granting 15% future
prospects instead of 10% applicable for a self-employed
person above 50 years; that, the deduction of 1/2
towards personal expenses was erroneous as the
deceased had five dependents; deduction should have
been 1/4th; that, the loss of consortium was wrongly
given in higher side to tune of ₹1,00,000/-, therefore,
the impugned award is erroneous and liable to be set
aside.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants
supported the award but fairly conceded that notional
income should have been taken as ₹8,331/- in absence
of proof; that, the deduction for personal expenses
should have been 1/4th (five dependents); that, under
the head of loss of consortium should be granted at
₹40,000/- per dependant as per the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16
2025:UHC:10049
SCC 680, not ₹20,000/-.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
9. Upon perusal of the record, it would reveal
that the numbers of dependents of the deceased are
five, therefore, deduction should be 1/4. There is no
documentary proof of income was filed by the
claimants in the claim petition; therefore, income
should be fixed as per Government Notification at
₹8,331/- per month. The compensation under the head
of loss of consortium must be awarded at ₹40,000/-
per dependant as per the settled law passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra).
10. Thus, the Tribunal's computation under the
aforesaid head requires modification. On Re-
calculation, the notional monthly income of the
deceased is assessed at ₹8,331/-. By adding 10%
towards future prospects, an amount of ₹833/- is
added, thereby enhancing the total monthly income to
₹9,164/-. Since the deceased had five dependents, a
deduction of one-fourth (1/4th) is to be made towards
personal and living expenses. One-fourth of ₹9,164/-
comes to ₹2,291/-. Thus, the monthly contribution of
the deceased towards the family is assessed at ₹9,164 -
₹2,291 = ₹6,873/-.
11. For calculating the annual loss of
dependency, the monthly contribution of ₹6,873/- is
multiplied by 12, which yields ₹82,476/-. Applying the
multiplier of 11, considering the age of the deceased as
53 years, the total loss of dependency comes to ₹82,476
× 11 = ₹9,07,236/-. Under the conventional heads as
2025:UHC:10049
laid down in Pranay Sethi's case, a sum of ₹40,000/-
per dependent is awarded towards loss of consortium.
For five dependents, this comes to ₹2,00,000/-.
Additionally, ₹15,000/- is awarded towards loss of
estate and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
12. Accordingly, the total compensation payable
is computed ₹9,07,236/- towards loss of dependency,
₹2,00,000/- towards consortium, ₹15,000/- towards
loss of estate, and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
The total amount of just compensation thus comes to
₹11,37,236/-.
13. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated
18.09.2024 passed by the learned M.A.C.T./District
Judge, Champawat in M.A.C.P. No. 13 of 2023 is
modified, and the claimants/respondents shall now be
entitled to a total compensation of ₹11,37,236/- in
place of ₹13,13,500/-. The amount shall carry the
same rate of interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
14. The appeal from order is, accordingly,
disposed of.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
13.11.2025
Mamta
MA
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900
bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1
RANI
d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b
66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd
004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2025.11.17 14:03:00
+05'30'
