Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Smt. Rachna And Others on 30 October, 2025
2025:UHC:9574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No.109 of 2022
30th October, 2025
The United India Insurance Company Ltd. ........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rachna and others .........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
None is present for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed against the judgment
and award dated 05.01.2022 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District
Judge, Haridwar, in Claim Petition No. 40 of 2019, Smt.
Rachna vs. Nawab and Others, whereby an award of
₹8,37,340/- along with interest @ 7% per annum was
granted as compensation in favour of the claimant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2018,
the claimant and her daughter, Ms. Akanksha, along
with relatives, were returning home after attending a
feast in car no. UK-07 DV-2134. At about 10:30 p.m.,
near their bungalow, a truck bearing no. HR-67B-1019,
driven rashly and at high speed, suddenly applied brakes
and turned towards their car, causing a collision. Ms.
2025:UHC:9574
Akanksha sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to
her, while others were also injured. FIR No. 437/2018
was registered at P.S. Bahadarabad against the truck
driver. The deceased, a young and healthy girl, worked as
a tailor earning Rs.10,000 per month, contributing her
income to the family. Her father had predeceased her,
and her mother has been left in deep shock. Though no
monetary compensation can make good the loss, the
petitioner seeks an award of Rs.65,50,000 with 12%
interest as just compensation..
3. The main contention of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the learned Tribunal, despite holding
that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured
on the date of the incident, wrongly passed an order of
"pay and recover" against the Insurance Company.
4. It is further submitted that since the vehicle in
question was being driven without a valid insurance
policy on the date of the accident, the liability could not
have been fastened upon the Insurance Company, and
the owner of the offending vehicle alone should have been
made liable to pay the compensation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
perused the record.
2025:UHC:9574
6. On perusal of the record, it reveals that the
learned Tribunal relied upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Inderjit Kaur, (1998) 1 SCC 371, and New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases held that even
if a vehicle is not effectively insured on the date of the
accident, the purpose of Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, is to ensure that third-party victims do not
suffer on account of disputes between the insurer and
the insured. The relevant portions from the judgment in
Inderjit Kaur (supra) are reproduced hereinbelow:
"10. The contract of insurance in respect of motor vehicles
has, therefore, to be construed in the light of the above
provisions. Section 146(1) contains a prohibition on the use of
the motor vehicles without an insurance policy having been
taken in accordance with Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles
Act. The manifest object of this provision is to ensure that the
third party, who suffers injuries due to the use of the motor
vehicle, may be able to get damages from the owner of the
vehicle and recoverability of the damages may not depend on
the financial condition or solvency of the driver of the vehicle
who had caused the injuries.
11. Thus, any contract of insurance under Chapter XI of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates a third party who is
not a signatory or a party to the contract of insurance but is,
nevertheless, protected by such contract. As pointed out by
this Court in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal
Dhanamal Aswani [AIR 1964 SC 1736] the rights of the third
party to get indemnified can be exercised only against the
insurer of the vehicle. It is thus clear that the third party is
not concerned and does not come into the picture at all in the
matter of payment of premium. Whether the premium has
been paid or not is not the concern of the third party who is
concerned with the fact that there was a policy issued in
respect of the vehicle involved in the accident and it is on the
basis of this policy that the claim can be maintained by the
third party against the insurer.
2025:UHC:9574
12. It was in the background of the above statutory
provisions that the provisions of Section 64-VB, upon which
reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the
appellant, were considered by this Court in Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur [(1998) 1 SCC 371 : 1999
SCC (Cri) 148] in which it was laid down as under: (SCC p.
375, para 9)
"9. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar
created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant,
an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover
the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of
the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third
parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered
and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof
notwithstanding its entitlement (upon which we do not
express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the
reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium
thereon had not been honoured."
7. In light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal was justified in
directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in
the first instance and thereafter recover the amount from
the owner of the offending vehicle. The principle of "pay
and recover" is settled to protect the rights of third-party
victims and ensure immediate compensation.
8. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality,
irregularity, or perversity in the impugned judgment and
award dated 05.01.2022 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge,
Haridwar.
9. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed as being
devoid of merit. No order as to costs.
2025:UHC:9574
10. The statutory amount deposited by the
appellant at the time of filing the appeal shall be remitted
to the Tribunal concerned.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
30.10.2025
BS
BALWAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c0
2fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820,
T SINGH
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553
DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.10.31 17:23:59 +05'30'
