Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Smt. Rajinder Kaur And Others on 4 September, 2025
2025:UHC:7860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 457 of 2019
4th September, 2025
The New India Assurance Company ........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rajinder Kaur and others ......... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Tribhuwan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2/claimants.
Ms. Suriya Naz, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma,
learned counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
This Appeal under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment
and award dated 29.07.2019 passed by learned
MACT/District Judge, Nainital in MACP No.19 of 2019,
Smt. Rajinder Kaur and another Vs. Km. Monika Negi
and others, by which an award of Rs.5,74,000/- with
interest @ 7% per annum as compensation has been
awarded by the Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.06.2016
at about 6 p.m. when Harpreet Singh alias Happy (son of
2025:UHC:7860
the claimant) was going to Dakbungla Petrol Pump to fill
petrol in his Scooty along with his friend Gaurav and
when he reached near Kaladhungi Post Office, the driver
of Swift car bearing number-UK-04U-1507 coming from
the opposite direction, hit the scooty while driving the car
rashly and negligently, in which both the Scooty riders
got seriously injured and Harpreet @ Happy died during
treatment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the alleged accident occurred on 13.06.2016,
while the FIR was lodged after the delay of 21 days of the
accident; that, thereafter, final report was submitted by
the I.O., which has been accepted by the Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant would
further submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in not
considering the factum of accident, as the vehicle was
being driven by the driver without proper documents, as
such the appellant had no liability.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants
would submit that as per Section 167 A of the MACT, Act
only factum of accident is to be proved in this case, it is
admitted that the death of the son of the claimants
happened due to the said accident.
2025:UHC:7860
6. He would further submit that the claim
petition has been filed by the claimants under Section
163-A of the M.V. Act. In the context of Section 163-A of
the M.V. Act, the learned counsel for the claimants relied
on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United
India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and
others reported in 2019 (12) SCC 398. The relevant para
of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:-
'8. From the above discussion, it is clear that
grant of compensation under Section 163-A of
the Act on the basis of the structured formula is
in the nature of a final award and the
adjudication thereunder is required to be made
without any requirement of any proof of
negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s)
involved in the accident. This is made explicit by
Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of
the Act does not specifically exclude a possible
defence of the Insurer based on the negligence
of the claimant as contemplated by Section
140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced
by the Insurer and/or to understand the
provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be
contemplating any such situation would go
contrary to the very legislative object behind
introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely,
final compensation within a limited time frame
on the basis of the structured formula to
overcome situations where the claims of
compensation on the basis of fault liability was
taking an unduly long time. In fact, to
understand Section 163A of the Act to permit
the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence
would be to bring a proceeding under Section
163A of the Act at par with the proceeding
under Section 166 of the Act which would not
2025:UHC:7860
only be self-contradictory but also defeat the
very legislative intention.'
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and perusal of the impugned order, this Court is
of the view that there is no infirmity in the order
impugned in the present appeal.
8. In the considered view of this Court, the order
passed by the learned court below is correct and justified
in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore
does not call for any interference by this Court.
9. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed in limine.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
04.09.2025
BS
BALWANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02f
e2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE
5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90,
cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.09.04 16:50:17 +05'30'
