30 October vs Sri Sanjay Pandey (Minor) & Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5117 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

30 October vs Sri Sanjay Pandey (Minor) & Another on 30 October, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:9610
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Appeal From Order No. 365 of 2014
                        30 October, 2025
United India Insurance Co.

                                                         --Appellant
                               Versus

Sri Sanjay Pandey (minor) & another


                                                     --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. 41 of 2011 (Sanjay Pandey v. Ganesh Dutt Joshi & Another), whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs. 14,500/- in favour of the claimant- Sanjay Pandey, 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 03.11.2010, at about 9:00 A.M., the claimant- Sanjay Pandey, aged about 16 years, along with his brother Krishna Kumar alias Krishnanand Pandey, was waiting for a bus on the roadside at Kamaluwaganja, within the

2025:UHC:9610 jurisdiction of Police Station-Haldwani. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration number UK 04 J 1463, being driven rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side and hit both the brothers, causing serious injuries to them. They were immediately taken to Sai Hospital, Haldwani for treatment, where Krishna Kumar succumbed to his injuries on 04.11.2010. The claimant sustained head and leg injuries, incurred medical expenses of about Rs. 40,000/-, and claimed that his education was disrupted due to his injuries. A report of the incident was submitted by his brother Prakash Chandra Pandey to the Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Range. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,25,000/- against the owner and insurer of the said motorcycle.

3. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. UK 04 J 1463, owned by Ganesh Dutt Joshi and insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. It was submitted that the claimant was a student of Class XI and was standing lawfully by the roadside when the offending motorcycle, driven from the wrong side, hit him and his brother with great force. His brother died of the injuries, while the claimant suffered grievous head and leg injuries, resulting in prolonged treatment and loss of studies.

4. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the FIR, the medical papers, and the testimony of PW2 Dr. M.C. Sati clearly established that the claimant was injured in a road accident involving the said motorcycle. The claimant,

2025:UHC:9610 therefore, prayed for just compensation for the pain, suffering, and financial hardship faced by him.

5. The learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle (Ganesh Dutt Joshi) denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving and contended that the claim was inflated and based on a concocted story. It was pleaded that on the date of the accident, the motorcycle was being driven slowly and carefully, whereas the claimant suddenly came in front of it, leading to the collision. The owner claimed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant himself.

6. However, the owner of the vehicle admitted that he was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident (valid from 15.07.2009 to 09.03.2026) and that the motorcycle was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., valid from 23.06.2010 to 22.06.2011. He also filed copies of his licence, registration certificate, and the insurance policy before the Tribunal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company) denied the occurrence of the accident as alleged and submitted that the claim was fabricated after a long delay. It was contended that no FIR was immediately lodged, and that the complaint was filed only after a considerable time, suggesting manipulation. It was also argued that the deceased himself was riding a motorcycle that hit a tree, causing his own injuries, and that the claimant, as pillion rider, sustained injuries in that self-caused accident. The insurer alleged that the owner of motorcycle No. UK 04 J 1463 had colluded with the claimant to implicate the vehicle falsely so as to extract compensation.

2025:UHC:9610

8. The appellant (Insurance Company) sought permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the case on all grounds available to the insured, and also argued that there was a possible violation of policy conditions.

9. 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 the petitioner Sanjay Kumar and his brother were waiting for a bus on the roadside at Kamaluwaganja, all of a sudden motorcycle no. UK 04 J 1463, being driven rashly and negligently from the wrong direction, hit them, causing serious injuries to Sanjay Kumar?

(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 vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, 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 is the petitioner entitled and from whom?

10. Issue no.1 and 2 were considered together. The Tribunal relied upon the direct testimony of PW1 Sanjay Pandey, who categorically deposed that while he and his brother were waiting by the roadside, motorcycle No. UK 04 J 1463, driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit them. His version remained consistent throughout and was not shaken in cross- examination. The Tribunal noted that the Insurance Company's Investigator (DW1 Chandrashekhar Pandey)

2025:UHC:9610 admitted that his report was not based on any eyewitness account. The Tribunal also took judicial note of the fact that the insurer itself had settled the own-damage (OD) claim of the same motorcycle, which clearly implied that the vehicle had indeed been involved in an accident around that time.

11. Based on these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred on 03.11.2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No. UK 04 J 1463, and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Issues No. 1 and 2 were accordingly decided in favour of the claimant.

12. On issues no. 3 & 4 the Tribunal observed that the driver of the motorcycle possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive a two-wheeler, and the vehicle was duly insured on the date of the accident. No evidence was led by the Insurance Company to show any breach of policy conditions or invalidity of the licence. Consequently, both issues were decided against the Insurance Company and in favour of the claimant.

13. On issue no. 5 the Tribunal took into consideration the medical records (discharge slip, CT scan report, and medical bills) and the evidence of Dr. M.C. Sati (PW2), who confirmed that the claimant sustained head and knee injuries and was hospitalized from 03.11.2010 to 05.11.2010.

14. It was held that the petitioner had incurred Rs. 4,500/- as medical expenses, besides suffering pain, trauma, and disruption in his studies. Considering his young age, the short hospitalization period, and the non- fatal nature of the injuries, the Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 14,500/-, which included Rs.

2025:UHC:9610 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 4,500/- towards medical expenses.

15. Since the driver held a valid licence and the vehicle was insured, the Tribunal fixed the entire liability upon the Insurance Company (Respondent No. 2) to pay the compensation amount with 7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent- claimant and perused the record, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The evidence clearly establishes that the accident occurred on 03.11.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle no. UK 04 J 1463. The driver's negligence stood proved from the consistent testimony of the injured eyewitness, supported by contemporaneous medical evidence. The Insurance Company's contention that the claim was fabricated or collusive is unsupported by any credible material. This Court finds it significant that the Insurance Company itself had settled the own-damage claim of the same motorcycle, thereby admitting its involvement in an accident around the relevant period. That circumstance completely undermines its present stand that the vehicle was falsely implicated.

17. Further, the owner's driving licence was valid, and no breach of policy conditions has been demonstrated. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its statutory liability under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

18. The Tribunal's assessment of compensation at Rs. 14,500/- is modest and reasonable, keeping in mind

2025:UHC:9610 the nature of the injuries, the brief hospitalization, and the evidence available. The award of interest at 7% per annum is also in conformity with established judicial practice.

19. There is thus no ground for interference in appellate jurisdiction. The award is based on proper appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law as laid down in Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are well-reasoned and supported by evidence. The plea of fabrication and false implication raised by the Insurance Company is wholly untenable. The award of Rs. 14,500/- with interest at 7% per annum is fair and just. The appeal stands dismissed.

21. The amount of compensation deposited before the learned claim Tribunal be released in favour of the respondents-claimants immediately along with interest accrued thereon, if not already released.

22. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 30.10.2025 AK