Uttarakhand High Court
(Under Section 173 Of The Motor Vehicle ... vs Smt. Sajiya Khanam And Others on 18 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8351
Reserved on 04.09.2025
Delivered on 18.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 318 of 2023
(Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988)
The New India Assurance Company Limited
...........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sajiya Khanam and Others
........Respondents
With
CROSS Objection No. 1 of 2023
Smt. Sazia Khanam and Others
...........Appellants
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Limited
........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram
Sharma and Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company
Mr. Z.U. Siddiqui, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to
7/claimants.
Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, learned counsel for respondent no.8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J. (Per.)
The present appeal has been filed against the
judgment and award dated 29.03.2023 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District
Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 36 of
2021, whereby a total compensation of ₹52,70,000/- was
awarded in favour of the claimants and against the
appellant/Insurance Company. The award was
subsequently reviewed on 17.11.2023 and 14.05.2024,
resulting in the enhancement of the compensation to
2025:UHC:8351
₹65,53,300/-.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per record are
that on 21.12.2019 at approximately 11:30 a.m., the
deceased, Imran Khan, was riding his motorcycle bearing
registration number UP26AC5836 near SIDCUL Police
Chowki, Sitarganj, at a slow speed. At that time, a tractor
trolley bearing registration number UK06CB3952
approached at a very high speed and, while overtaking
another vehicle, came in the wrong direction and collided
with the motorcycle resulting in the death of husband of
respondent no.1. The driver of the tractor trolley failed to
apply brakes, and due to its high speed, the collision
could not be avoided. The accident was thus attributed to
the negligence of the tractor trolley driver. The police
promptly reached the scene, and the deceased was taken
to Government Hospital, Sitarganj. Thereafter, the body
was sent to Government Hospital, Khatima, where the
postmortem examination was conducted. The police
promptly reached the scene, and the deceased was taken
to Government Hospital, Sitarganj. Thereafter, the body
was sent to Government Hospital, Khatima, where the
postmortem examination was conducted. The deceased
subsequently underwent a post-mortem examination. At
the time of his death, the deceased, aged 37 years, was a
healthy civil engineer engaged in contracting work at
SIDCUL. The claimants produced Income Tax Returns for
the years 2018-19 and 2019-20 reflecting an annual
income of ₹3,51,329/- and ₹3,58,488/- respectively. The
deceased was the sole earning member of his family.
Accordingly, his widow, children, mother, and unmarried
sisters filed a claim petition seeking compensation of
₹85,00,000/-.
2025:UHC:8351
3. The claimants produced documentary evidence
including photocopies of the insurance policy,
panchanama of the deceased, copy of the FIR, death
certificate, Aadhar card, driving license, birth certificates,
educational qualification certificates, handicap certificate
of claimant no.6 (sister), income tax records of the
deceased, and post-mortem report. Oral evidence was led
by claimant no.1 (wife) and PW2, Sehnewaj Hasmi.
4. On behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company, documentary evidence was filed, including the
registration certificate of vehicle UK06CB3278, insurance
certificate, certified permit, driving license, fitness
certificate, and Aadhar card of the vehicle owner.
5. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the
Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the deceased, riding his motorcycle on
21.12.2019, collided with a trolley driven rashly and
negligently by its driver while overtaking another
vehicle, resulting in fatal injuries?
ii) Whether the accident occurred due to the
deceased's own rash or negligent driving, or whether
contributory negligence was involved?
iii) Whether the claim petition is vitiated by non-
impleading of the motorcycle's owner, driver, and
insurance company as parties?
iv) Whether the offending vehicle was driven by a
valid licensed driver and covered by insurance on
the date of the accident?
v) Whether the claimants are entitled to
compensation, and if so, to what extent and from
whom?
6. The learned Tribunal, after considering the
pleadings and evidence held that the accident was
2025:UHC:8351
caused by the negligence of the tractor trolley driver and
awarded ₹52,70,000/- as compensation to the claimants.
Subsequently, by orders dated 17.11.2023 and
14.05.2024, the compensation was enhanced first to
₹65,30,000/- and later to ₹65,53,300/- respectively.
7. Learned senior counsel for the
appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the
compensation award was wrongly based on photocopies
of the Income Tax Returns for the years 2018-19 and
2019-20, which were neither properly proved nor
admissible. It was further argued that the tribunal failed
to take into account that the income tax amounts for
both years had been refunded. It was also contended that
the deceased's occupation as a contractor lacked
documentary proof and that contributory negligence by
the deceased could not be ruled out, as sufficient space
on the road existed. The site plan was ignored, and the
accident occurred in the middle of the road.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that
the Tribunal committed a grave error in reviewing and
enhancing the compensation awards on two separate
occasions, which was wholly unauthorized and beyond
its jurisdiction. It was argued that firstly after passing
the award, the Tribunal became functus officio and, in
the absence of any statutory provision permitting a
review on merits, it lacked the authority to reopen or
augment the compensation. Additionally, it was
submitted that the Tribunal's reliance on presumptive
income for the years subsequent to the date of the
deceased's demise was legally untenable, as it was
contrary to established principles governing
compensation and the determination of income based
2025:UHC:8351
solely on verifiable facts available at the time of death.
9. Learned senior counsel also challenged the
award of ₹40,000/- towards consortium to each of the
claimant separately totaling ₹2,00,000/-, citing the
judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, which
mandates that the total consortium compensation should
be ₹40,000/- for all claimants collectively. Reliance was
also placed on New India Assurance Co. v. Sonigra
Juhi Uttamchand, (2025) 3 SCC 23 to assert that
photocopies of documents are inadmissible unless
corroborated and proven.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the
other hand, submitted that the Tribunal duly considered
the evidence and exercised its discretion lawfully. The
review and enhancement orders were justified, as the
Tribunal acted upon discovering errors apparent on the
record. The photocopies of the ITR were admissible as
secondary evidence in light of corroboration and the
absence of discrepancies. The Tribunal's findings on
contributory negligence and loss of consortium were
consistent with the evidence and established legal
principles.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
12. The principal issues urged by learned counsel
for the appellant for determination are: (i) whether the
Tribunal was competent to review its award; (ii) whether
reliance on photocopies of the Income Tax Returns was
permissible or admissible; (iii) whether the compensation
2025:UHC:8351
awarded under the head of consortium was justified.
13. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant drew
the attention of this Hon'ble Court to Rule 223 of the
Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules, 2011'), which specifies that the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
shall apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal,
except that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not made applicable
in such proceedings. He further submitted that the
provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which provide for
review of judgments, are not applicable to proceedings
under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)
framework.
14. Review is a creature of status that can be
invoked only where the relevant procedural or
substantive provisions are expressly applicable. In the
absence of such express applicability in MACT
proceedings, no inherent power exists to review an award
on merits.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered a
significant judgment in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K.
Suguna and Another, (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1927
wherein the Hon'ble Court emphasized the limited scope
of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Civil
Procedure Code (CPC). It reiterated that a review is not
an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-hear a
case or substitute one view for another. It is also held
that the grounds for review are narrow and include
discovery of new and important evidence; a mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record; any other
sufficient reason analogous to the above.
2025:UHC:8351
16. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC
320, clarified that review is maintainable only in the
following circumstances:
"(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him at the appropriate time;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason."
17. Similarly, in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos
and Other Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and
Others, (1954) 2 SCC 42, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
enumerated the principles under which a review is not
maintainable:
"(i) A mere repetition of old or overruled arguments is not
sufficient to reopen concluded adjudications;
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import cannot
justify review;
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with an
original hearing of the case;
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the record, undermines its soundness
or results in miscarriage of justice;
(v) Review is not an appeal in disguise where erroneous
decisions are merely re-heard and corrected, but lies only for
patent errors;
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on a subject cannot
be a ground for review;
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be one that requires fishing out or searching into details;
(viii) Appreciation of evidence on record is a matter
exclusively within the domain of the appellate court and
cannot be revisited in a review petition;
(ix) Review is not maintainable where the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had already
been negatived."
18. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex has held in
numerous cases that a review is maintainable only where
2025:UHC:8351
there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and
questions of fact cannot be grounds for review. In light of
the above principles, the orders dated 17.11.2023 and
14.05.2024 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and
same are deserves to be set aside.
19. Regarding the second point on whether
photocopies of the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) can be
used as proof of the deceased's income, it is submitted
that certified or verified copies of documents are allowed
as secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, if their authenticity can be confirmed. In State of
U.P. Vs. Raj Narain & Others (1975) 4 SCC 428, the
Supreme Court held that secondary evidence can be
relied upon when the original document is not available
and its genuineness is proven. In the case of Union of
India & Others v. Dhanwanti Devi & Others (1996) 6
SCC 44, it was confirmed that copies certified by public
authorities are admissible as secondary evidence if they
are shown to be authentic. Therefore, photocopies of the
ITRs, once properly served to the parties and verified, can
be accepted as secondary evidence to prove the
deceased's income. Any objection to this must be raised
at the time the document is being proved and cannot be
raised later.
20. In this case, the Insurance Company did not
object to the photocopy of the ITR during the proceedings
before the Claims Tribunal, and the authenticity of the
documents was not challenged. Moreover, the deceased,
an Engineer Graduate working as a contractor, had a
reasonable income consistent with his work. Accordingly,
the second issue regarding admissibility of the ITR copies
is decided against the appellant. The claimants'
2025:UHC:8351
documentary evidence is accepted as secondary evidence
and no further objection can be raised at this stage.
21. As regards the third issue related to the
justification award of compensation under the head of
consortium was justified. In the case of New India
Assurance Company Limited v. Somwati and
connected appeals, (2020) 9 SCC 644, wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court after considering Pranay Sethi v. Union of
India and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur
alias Satvinder Kaur and others (2020 SCC Online 410),
has held that compensation under the head of loss of
consortium is payable to all eligible dependents, namely,
the spouse, children, and parents. The Court clarified
that consortium includes spousal, parental, and filial
consortium, and each eligible dependent is entitled to a
separate award. The relevant observations from
paragraphs 31, 32, and 33 are summarized below:
31. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu
Ram and others, the two-Judge Bench awarded Rs. 40,000
each to the father and sister of the deceased for loss of filial
consortium, noting that compensation should be governed
by the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi.
32. A three-Judge Bench in United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur alias Satvinder Kaur
reaffirmed the view in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
holding that compensation in death cases should be
awarded only under three conventional heads:
(a) Loss of Estate
(b) Loss of Consortium
(c) Funeral Expenses
The Court emphasized that these heads cannot be
determined on a percentage basis but must be quantified
on a reasonable foundation, taking into account factors
such as price index fluctuations and bank interest rates.
2025:UHC:8351
The recommended compensation amounts are:
Loss of Estate - Rs. 15,000
Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000
Funeral Expenses - Rs. 15,000
These amounts should be enhanced by 10% every
three years to maintain consistency.
33. The Court elaborated on the concept of
consortium:
• Loss of Consortium was traditionally confined to
spousal rights relating to companionship, care,
comfort, affection, and sexual relations. The Court
expanded this to include parental and filial
consortium as well.
• Spousal Consortium compensates for the loss of
company, care, affection, guidance, and intimacy
following the death of a spouse.
• Parental Consortium allows children to claim
compensation for the loss of care, protection, and
guidance upon the premature death of their parents.
• Filial Consortium recognizes the profound shock
and grief parents suffer when losing a child and
compensates for the loss of love, affection, and
companionship.
The Court noted that many jurisdictions globally, including
the United States and Australia, recognize such claims as
non-pecuniary damages, emphasizing the emotional and
psychological loss rather than mere economic detriment.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being beneficial legislation,
aims to provide relief to victims or their families in cases of
genuine claims. Accordingly, the Court held that:
• Parents are entitled to compensation for the loss of
consortium upon the death of minor or unmarried
children.
• Children are entitled to compensation for parental loss
in accidents.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that
compensation under the head of 'loss of consortium'
should be awarded uniformly in accordance with the
recognized principles. Therefore, there is no infirmity in
2025:UHC:8351
the award passed by the learned Tribunal in granting
compensation under this head separately to each
claimant at ₹40,000/- each, amounting to a total of
₹2,00,000/-.
23. In view of the foregoing, the judgments and
orders dated 17.11.2023 and 14.05.2024 are hereby set
aside. The impugned judgment and award dated
29.03.2023, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Haldwani,
District Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 36 of 2021, wherein a
total compensation of ₹52,70,000/- was awarded in favor
of the claimants and against the appellant/Insurance
Company, is upheld. The appellant/Insurance Company
is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants in
accordance with the proportion determined by the trial
court's judgment.
24. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
25. The Appeal from Order No. 318 of 2023 filed by
the appellant/Insurance Company is disposed of by
upholding the judgment and award dated 29.03.2023
passed by the learned Tribunal. At the same time, the
claimants' cross-objection for enhancement of
compensation is also examined. The claimants argued
that the deceased's income was fully proven and not
liable for deductions under income tax, as the exemption
limit was ₹7,00,000 and the applicable tax slabs would
not reduce the amount. They further contended that the
Tribunal's deductions were unfair. Relying on the
decision in Pranay Sethi v. Union of India, they claimed
that compensation should be increased by 10% per year
and by 20% from October 2017 onwards. They also
challenged the post-claim interest rate, stating that
2025:UHC:8351
applying 6.5% interest from the date of filing the claim
was improper.
26. After a thorough examination of the case
records, this Court finds no merit in the claimants'
submissions. The Tribunal carefully scrutinized the
deceased's income tax returns and, after verification of
the documents, correctly applied the requisite deductions
in accordance with law. Moreover, the Tribunal's decision
to award post-claim interest at 6.5% per annum is in
consonance with established jurisprudence and
principles governing compensation awards. No error or
infirmity is evident in the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal.
27. Accordingly, CROSS OBJECTION No. 1 of 2023
filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation
is dismissed.
28. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed
of.
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 18.09.2025
Mamta
MA
MTA
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f
244f3e584af1449e430ef900b
f09a6d67ebbd642671329b,
postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d
RANI
9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6
6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0
04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI
Date: 2025.09.18 16:41:57
+05'30'
