Uttarakhand High Court
30 October vs Smt. Bhawna Devi & Others on 30 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:9610
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 366 of 2014
30 October, 2025
United India Insurance Co.
--Appellant
Versus
Smt. Bhawna Devi & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Zafar Ulla Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondents/
claimants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the
appellant Insurance Company under section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act,1988 against the judgment and order
dated 13.06.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Haldwani
in MACP No. 36 of 2011 (Smt. Bhawani Devi & others vs.
Ganesh Dutt Joshi & another), whereby the learned
Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation of Rs. 6,38,000/- in favour of the
claimant- Smt. Bhawani Devi , along with interest at 7%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till
actual realization, holding the appellant-United India
Insurance Company Ltd. liable to satisfy the award.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 3
November 2010, at about 9:00 a.m., the deceased
Krishna Kumar alias Kishan Pandey, aged around 26
years, and his younger brother Sanjay Pandey were
standing by the side of the road at Kamaluwaganja,
2025:UHC:9610
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Haldwani, waiting
for a bus to return to their village after selling milk in the
town. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.
UK-04 J-1463, being driven rashly, negligently, and on
the wrong side of the unpaved road, came at high speed
and hit both of them with great force. Both brothers
sustained serious injuries and were immediately taken to
Sai Hospital, Haldwani, where they were admitted for
emergency treatment. While Sanjay Pandey survived after
prolonged medical attention, Krishna Kumar succumbed
to his injuries on 4 November 2010. It was alleged that
the deceased earned approximately Rs.6,000 per month
from his small dairy business. He was the sole
breadwinner of the family, comprising his widow Smt.
Bhavana Devi and two minor children. On account of his
untimely death, the family suffered acute financial
hardship and emotional distress. Accordingly, the
claimants filed a petition under Sections 166 and 140 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of
Rs. 21,10,000/- from the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle.
3. The learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that the entire accident occurred solely due to
the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle No. UK-
04 J-1463, owned by Ganesh Dutt Joshi and it was
insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. The
vehicle, they claimed, had come from the wrong direction,
and hit both of them with great force. They further stated
that the accident was promptly reported, but due to the
shock of the fatality and the family's preoccupation with
medical treatment and funeral arrangements, the formal
complaint was lodged later by their relative Prakash
Chandra Pandey with the office of the Inspector General
2025:UHC:9610
of Police, Kumaon Range. It was also submitted that the
deceased, being self-employed in milk distribution, used
to earn a steady income of Rs.6,000 per month and
contributed the major portion to the maintenance of his
wife, children, and aged father. The death had left the
family destitute, with no other source of livelihood.
4. The learned counsel for the owner of the
motorcycle filed a written statement denying the
allegations of rashness or negligence. He asserted that
his vehicle was being driven slowly and carefully on its
correct side of the road, when the deceased suddenly and
negligently appeared in front of it, resulting in the
unfortunate collision. The owner contended that the
deceased was himself responsible for the accident.
5. He also emphasised that on the date of the
incident, he held a valid and effective driving licence
(valid from 15.07.2009 to 09.03.2026), that his
motorcycle was duly registered and insured, and that
there had been no breach of policy terms or statutory
provisions.
6. The appellant- United India Insurance
Company Ltd., in its written statement, denied all
material allegations. It contended that there was
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and that the claim
was a fabricated story, concocted much later with the
connivance of the vehicle owner. The insurer argued that
if such a serious accident had indeed occurred, it was
inexplicable why no immediate police report was made,
and why the vehicle allegedly involved was not seized or
verified by police authorities within a reasonable time
period.
7. The insurer further pleaded that since the
2025:UHC:9610
vehicle owner did not properly contest the matter, it had
sought and obtained permission under Section 170 of the
Motor Vehicles Act to contest the petition on all grounds
available to the insured, including negligence and
quantum.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties
concerned the learned Tribunal framed the following
issues for adjudication:
(i) Whether on 03.11.2010 at around 9:00 A.M., when
Kishan Kumar alias Kishan Pandey along with his
brother Sanjay Kumar was waiting for a bus on the
roadside at Kamaluwaganja, all of a sudden a
motorcycle, bearing registration no. UK 04 J 1463, being
driven rashly and negligently from the wrong direction,
hit them, causing serious injuries and as a result led to
the death of Kishan Kumar alias Kishan Pandey in Sai
Hospital, Haldwani?
(ii) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence
of the petitioner himself, if so, its effect?
(iii) Whether on the date and time of such accident, the
driver of the offending motorcycle did not hold a valid
and effective driving licence, if so, its effect?
(iv) Whether the vehicle owner has violated any
condition of the insurance policy, if so, its effect?
(v) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the
claimants entitled, and from whom?
9. On behalf of the claimants, PW1 Smt. Bhavana
Devi (widow), PW2 Sanjay Pandey (injured eyewitness),
and PW3 Dr. Chandrashekhar Bhatt (Sai Hospital) were
examined.
10. A large number of documents were exhibited,
including:-
2025:UHC:9610
(i) FIR and complaint to the I.G. Police (Papers 4G/1-
9G/2),
(ii) Medical reports, post-mortem report, and hospital
bills (Papers 10G/1-10G/15),
(iii) Death certificate and receipts for treatment and
CT scan (Papers 26C/1-26C/3).
11. On behalf of the respondents, DW1 Sub-
Inspector Sushil Chandra Joshi (who conducted
panchayatnama proceedings) and DW2 Chandrashekhar
Pandey, the insurance investigator, were examined. The
insurer also placed on record its internal investigation
report (Paper No. 58C/2) and verification report (Papers
62C/1-62C/2).
12. On issues no. 1 & 2 the Tribunal carefully
analyzed the oral and documentary evidence. PW2 Sanjay
Pandey, being an injured eyewitness, gave a clear and
consistent account of the accident, stating that the
motorcycle came from the wrong side at high speed and
struck both brothers, causing fatal injuries to Krishna
Kumar. His presence at the scene was natural and
corroborated by his own injury records and the hospital
admission details.
13. On the contrary, the insurer's witness, DW2
Chandrashekhar Pandey, admitted in cross-examination
that his investigation report was not based on any
eyewitness account and that he did not record
statements of any local residents. Furthermore, the
Tribunal observed that the insurer had settled an own-
damage claim (OD claim) for the same vehicle after
the accident -- which contradicted its stand that the
motorcycle was not involved. DW1, the Sub-Inspector,
2025:UHC:9610
only confirmed that panchayatnama proceedings were
held, and his testimony did not rebut the claimant's
evidence. The Tribunal found the insurer's allegation of
collusion baseless and unsupported by any independent
proof. Hence, it concluded that the accident occurred
solely due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle
No. UK 04 J-1463 by its driver, and not due to any
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
14. On issues no. 3 & 4 the Tribunal noted that
the burden to prove absence of a valid driving licence or
breach of policy terms lay squarely on the Insurance
Company. No evidence was adduced in this regard.
Documentary records showed that the driver, Ganesh
Dutt Joshi, possessed a valid licence effective till
09.03.2026, and that the vehicle was duly insured under
a policy valid from 23.06.2010 to 22.06.2011.
Accordingly, these issues were decided against the
insurer, holding that there was no breach of policy
conditions.
15. On issue no. 5 regarding compensation, the
Tribunal noted that though the claimants alleged that the
deceased earned Rs.6,000 per month through dairy
business, no documentary evidence such as sales
receipts, registration of dairy work, or tax records was
produced. It therefore treated him as an unskilled
labourer and assessed income at Rs.150 per day, i.e.,
Rs.4,500 per month or Rs.54,000 per annum.
16. Deducting one-third for personal and living
expenses, the annual dependency was determined at
Rs.36,000. Considering the deceased's age as 26 years, a
multiplier of 16 was applied, yielding a dependency loss
of Rs,5,76,000.
2025:UHC:9610
17. Adding Rs.22,000 towards medical expenses,
Rs.10,000 towards funeral expenses, and Rs.30,000
towards non-pecuniary damages (loss of consortium,
love, and affection), the total compensation came to
Rs.6,38,000/-.
18. The Tribunal held the United India Insurance
Company Ltd. liable to pay the entire amount with
interest at 7% per annum, and issued appropriate
directions for apportionment and safeguarding of the
minor children's shares.
19. Having heard all the parties and having
perused the record of the Tribunal with due care, this
Court finds that the award under challenge does not
suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting
interference in appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel for
the appellant - Insurance Company reiterated that the
claim was a fabricated version of an accident that never
occurred in the manner alleged, and that there was
inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. It was argued that
the claimants, in collusion with the owner of the
motorcycle, falsely implicated vehicle No. UK-04 J-1463
to obtain compensation. The insurer contended that the
Tribunal erred in relying upon the testimony of PW2
Sanjay Pandey, who was the deceased's brother and,
therefore, an interested witness. It was also submitted
that in the absence of reliable proof of income, the
Tribunal's assessment of compensation was arbitrary
and excessive.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for the claimants - respondents supported the award and
submitted that the entire case of the Insurance Company
rested merely on false allegations and unsubstantiated
2025:UHC:9610
suspicion. The testimony of PW2 Sanjay Pandey, an
injured eyewitness, was consistent, natural, and duly
supported by the medical and documentary evidence on
record. The delay in lodging the formal complaint, it was
argued, was neither unnatural nor fatal, since the
immediate concern of the family was to secure medical
assistance and perform last rites. It was further
submitted that the insurer's own conduct in settling the
"Own Damage" claim of the same vehicle completely
demolished its stand that the vehicle was not involved in
the accident. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents
holding that delay in lodging FIR cannot by itself
discredit genuine motor accident claims Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC
646 & Ravi v. Badrinarayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693).
21. Upon consideration of the entire material on
record, this Court finds substantial force in the
submissions advanced on behalf of the claimants. The
evidence of PW2 Sanjay Pandey, who was himself
grievously injured in the same occurrence, cannot be
discarded merely on the ground that he was related to
the deceased. His deposition is clear, coherent, and
unshaken in cross-examination. It is fully corroborated
by the medical records, admission slips, and post-
mortem report. The investigation conducted by DW2
Chandrashekhar Pandey on behalf of the insurer was in
a casual and mechanical manner he himself admitted
that his report was not based on statements of any
eyewitnesses or public persons.
22. The Tribunal rightly noted that the insurer's
plea of fabrication was further weakened by the fact that
it had itself processed and paid the OD claim of the same
motorcycle, an implicit acknowledgment that the vehicle
2025:UHC:9610
had been damaged in an accident contemporaneous with
the date in question. In such circumstances, the finding
of the Tribunal that the accident was caused by the rash
and negligent driving of motorcycle No. UK 04 J-1463 is
fully justified and calls for no interference. With regard to
the question of quantum of compensation, this Court
finds that the Tribunal has adopted a reasonable and
conservative approach. The income of the deceased was
not proved by documentary evidence, but taking him as
an unskilled worker earning Rs150 per day (Rs.4,500 per
month) was both fair and consistent with the standard
notified rates prevailing in 2010. The application of a
multiplier of 16 for the age bracket of the deceased and
the deduction of one-third towards personal expenses, is
in accordance with the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121. The
amounts awarded under conventional heads - for funeral
expenses, medical treatment, and loss of consortium are
modest and reasonable. The insurer has failed to prove
that there was any breach of policy conditions or that the
driver lacked a valid and effective licence. On the
contrary, the record demonstrates that all statutory
documents - registration, insurance policy, and driving
licence were in force on the date of the accident. The
liability of the insurer is, therefore, absolute and
statutory.
23. Having carefully considered all the
contentions, this Court finds no reason to differ from the
well-reasoned findings of the Tribunal either on the
question of negligence or quantum. The compensation
awarded is just, proper, and commensurate with the loss
suffered by the dependents. The appeal filed by United
India Insurance Company Ltd. is dismissed.
2025:UHC:9610
24. Let the statutory amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- be
remitted back to the learned Tribunal forthwith if not
already remitted. The compensation deposited with the
learned Tribunal be released in favour of the
respondents/claimants including the statutory deposit
along with interest accrued thereon, if any, if not already
released. Rest of the amount of compensation be
deposited by the appellant i.e. in the Tribunal along with
interest withint one month from today.
25. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
30.10.2025
AK
