Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Smt Meena Bisht And Others on 10 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9068
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 316 of 2023
10th October, 2025
SBI General Insurance Company Limited .......Appellant
Versus
Smt Meena Bisht and Others ............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to
3.
Mr. Pramod Bailwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.
The present Appeal from Order under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred
by the appellant/Insurance Company against the
judgment and award dated 04.05.2023 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar
in M.A.C.P. No.155 of 2020, whereby the learned
Tribunal awarded a total sum of ₹50,99,549/- as
compensation along with interest in favour of the
claimants and against the appellant/Insurance
Company.
2. Brief fact of the case, as per record, are that
2025:UHC:9068
on 10.05.2020, deceased Jagat Singh was proceeding
towards a petrol pump on his motorcycle bearing
registration no. UK06 AR 9706 to fill petrol. When he
reached near Ahura Petrol Pump at about 11:30 A.M., a
truck bearing registration no. HR55 J 7230, being
driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came from
behind and hit his motorcycle. As a result, Jagat Singh
sustained serious injuries and was initially taken to the
Government Hospital, Khatima, and subsequently
referred to higher centres. He was admitted to Ishan
Hospital, Bareilly till 13.06.2020, and thereafter at
Rammurti Hospital, Bareilly from 14.06.2020, where he
succumbed to his injuries on 07.07.2020 during
treatment. An F.I.R. was lodged on 13.05.2020 under
Sections 279, 338, 427 and 304-A I.P.C..
The deceased was a retired Army personnel, drawing a
pension of ₹25,000/- per month, and also running a
Patanjali Store, with an annual income of
approximately ₹5,00,000/-. On this basis, a total
compensation of ₹50,50,000/- was claimed by the
dependents.
3. The owner (respondent no.4) and driver
(respondent no.5) of the offending truck filed separate
written statements denying negligence and asserting
2025:UHC:9068
that the accident occurred due to the deceased's
sudden application of brakes in the middle of the road.
They further stated that all vehicle documents and the
driver's license were valid and effective on the date of
the accident and, therefore, the liability, if any, was to
be indemnified by the Insurance Company.
4. The appellant/Insurance Company, in its
written statement, denied its liability, contending that
the claim petition was defective as it was not properly
verified; that, the accident did not occur with the
alleged truck, as the F.I.R. initially referred to an
unknown vehicle; and the incident involved
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased
motorcyclist.
5. The claimants produced several documents
including the F.I.R., postmortem report, death
certificate, medical bills, discharge summaries,
registration and insurance papers, and income tax
return for A.Y. 2019-2020 showing income of
₹5,12,188/-. In the oral evidence, PW1 to PW7 were
examined, which included eyewitnesses and medical
witnesses. In defence, the Insurance Company
examined its investigator, who stated that the accident
happened due to a collision caused by contributory
2025:UHC:9068
negligence.
6. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence,
the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether on 10.05.2020 at about 11.30 A.M., Jagat
Singh was going to fill petrol in his motorcycle
number UK06AR9706, when he reached near Ahara
Petrol Pump, the driver of truck number HR55J7230,
driving the truck rashly and negligently, hit his
motorcycle from behind, due to which he got
seriously injured, as a result of which Jagat Singh
died on 07.07.2020 during treatment? If yes, what
was the impact.
ii) Whether the driver of the Truck No.HR55J7230 on
the date of accident, dive have a valid and effective
driving license.
iii) Whether the Insurance and all R.T.O. forms of
Truck NO.HR55J7230 valid on the date of accident?
If yes, what effect?
iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation, and if so, to what extent and from
whom?
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the
pleadings and evidence held on issue No.1 that The
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the truck bearing no. HR55 J 7230, resulting in the
injuries and subsequent death of Jagat Singh and
decided the issue no.1 in favour of the claimants. On
issue no.2, learned Tribunal held that the driver
possessed a valid and effective driving license on the
date of the accident and decided issue no.2 in favour of
2025:UHC:9068
the insured/owner. On issue no.3, learned Tribunal
held that the truck was duly insured, registered, and
had valid permit, fitness and pollution documents on
the date of the accident and decided issue no.3 in
favour of the claimants. On issue no.4, learned
Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to
compensation from the Insurance Company, being the
insurer of the offending vehicle.
7. Learned Tribunal assessed the total
compensation at ₹50,99,549/-, comprising
₹34,45,650/- towards loss of dependency (calculated on
a net annual income of ₹4,99,370/- with 15% future
prospects and applying a multiplier of 9 after deducting
one-third for personal expenses), ₹15,83,899/- towards
medical expenses, ₹15,000/- each for loss of estate and
funeral expenses, and ₹40,000/- for loss of
consortium/love and affection.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance
Company submitted that the accident was not proved
to have occurred with the insured vehicle;
that, the F.I.R. mentioned an unknown vehicle, hence
identification of the truck was doubtful; that,
the Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence;
and the future prospects ought to have been calculated
2025:UHC:9068
@10% instead of 15% considering that the deceased
was 57 years old and self-employed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents would submit that the Tribunal
rightly relied upon the income tax return for
Assessment Year 2019-20 and computed the
compensation accordingly. However, he fairly conceded
that the deceased was a retired Army person running a
Patanjali Store, and the business may be continued
after his demise.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
10. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds
no illegality in the Tribunal's reliance on the Income
Tax Return for determining the income of the deceased.
The annual income of ₹4,99,370/- (after tax) is properly
established. However, with respect to future prospects,
since the deceased was a retired person aged 57 years,
and his business continued after death, applying 15%
addition is excessive. Following the principle laid down
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, for self-employed persons
aged between 50-60 years, 10% addition under the
head of future prospects is appropriate.
2025:UHC:9068
11. Thus, the Tribunal's computation under this
head requires modification. On recalculation, the net
annual income of the deceased comes to ₹4,99,370/-,
to which 10% is added towards future prospects,
making the total annual income ₹5,49,307/-. After
deducting one-third (₹1,83,102/-) towards personal
expenses, the annual contribution to the family is
assessed at ₹3,66,205/-. Applying a multiplier of 9, the
total loss of dependency amounts to ₹32,95,845/-.
Adding ₹15,83,899/- towards medical expenses and
₹70,000/- under conventional heads (₹15,000/- for loss
of estate, ₹40,000/- for consortium/love and affection,
and ₹15,000/- for funeral expenses), the total
compensation payable comes to ₹49,49,744/-.
Accordingly, the total compensation is reduced from
₹50,99,549/- to ₹49,49,744/-. The rest of the findings
of the Tribunal, including liability and interest, are
affirmed.
12. The appeal from order is partly allowed.
The impugned judgment and award dated 04.05.2023
passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent
that the compensation amount stands reduced to
₹49,49,744/- with interest at the same rate as awarded
by the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company
2025:UHC:9068
shall deposit the modified amount with accrued interest
before the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. The
Tribunal shall release the same to the claimants as per
rules and in the same proportion as directed in the
impugned award.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
10.10.2025.
Mamta
