[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Prabhat Kukreti And Others on 19 February, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal Against Order No. 149 of 2019
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ........Appellant
Versus
Prabhat Kukreti and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondents.
With
Appeal Against Order No. 407 of 2018
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ........Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sulochana Dangwal and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Deepak Rawat, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Since both these appeals basically arise from one and the
same accident, they are heard together and decided by this common
judgment.
2. Appeal Against Order No. 407 of 2018 has arisen out of
judgment and order dated 22.06.2018, passed in MACP No. 05 of 2017
Smt. Sulochana and others Vs. Jaiprakash Dabral and others, by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal("the first
claim petition"),.
3. Appeal Against Order No. 149 of 2019 has arisen out of
judgment and order dated 03.01.2019, passed in MACP No. 07 of 2018
Prabhat Kukreti Vs. Jaiprakash Dabral and others, by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal("the second
claim petition"),.
4. Both these claim petitions arises out of an accident, which
took place on 11.10.2017 at 3:00 p.m. According to the claim petitions,
on that date and time, the deceased Rajesh Dangwal was riding a
motorcycle bearing Registration No. UK09-7238 ("the motorcycle"),
when the claimant in the second claim petition Prabhat Kukreti, his
cousin, was a pillion rider. At a place called Ratnogad, a truck bearing
Registration No. UK07CC0797 ("the truck") was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner and it hit the motorcycle. Consequent to it,
Rajesh Dangwal sustained injuries and died at the spot, whereas
Prabhat Kukreti, claimant in the second claim petition sustained
grievous injuries. The legal representatives of Rajesh Dangwal filed the
first claim petition, which was objected to by the owner of the truck,
driver of the truck as well as by the appellant, who happens to be the
Insurance Company. After hearing the parties, the first claim petition
was allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased Rajesh
Dangwal were awarded Rs.5,96,500/- compensation alongwith interest,
which has been challenged by the Insurance Company in Appeal
Against Order No. 407 of 2018.
5. The injured Prabhat Kukreti filed the second claim petition,
which was also objected to by the respondents i.e. Driver, Owner and
the Insurance Company of the truck, but the second claim petition was
allowed and total Rs. 3,75,000/- alongwith interest were granted to the
injured Prabhat Kukreti.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant in both these appeals
submits that the accident is not as a result of any act done by the
driver of the truck, instead it is a result of the negligence committed by
the deceased Rajesh Dangwal while driving the motorcycle. It is argued
that while driving the motorcycle, the deceased Rajesh Dangwal slipped
and sustained injuries. Subsequently, he died. In that process, the
claimant Prabhat Kukreti also sustained injuries. In addition to it, it is
also argued that the Insurance Company of the motorcycle has not been
made the party. He restricts his arguments to these two points only.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, in fact,
in both these claim petitions, injured Prabhat Kukreti has been
examined. He has deposed as to how did the accident take place and
finding has been given that the accident took place as a result of the
negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. The appellant has not
adduced any evidence to rebut as to what the claimant Prabhat Kukreti
has deposed.
9. Insofar as the making the Insurance Company of the
motorcycle as a party is concerned, it is submitted that there is a
finding recorded that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of
the motorcycle, who was deceased Rajesh Dangwal. It was not
necessary to make the Insurance Company of the motorcycle as a party.
10. In the first claim petition i.e. MACP No. 05 of 2017, one of
the issues is with regard to the negligence is issue no.1, which is as
follows:-
"1. Whether the deceased Rajesh Dangwal died due to injuries
received in an accident alleged to have occurred on
11.10.2017 at 3:00 p.m. at place Ratnogad, Chamba
Dharasu motor marg within Patwari Chauki Bhaldiyana,
Tehsil Kandisaud, District-Tehri Garhwal when the driver
of vehicle No. UK07CC-0797 rashly and negligently hit the
motorcycle No. UK09-7297 of deceased, if so, its effect."
11. Similarly, in second claim petition, which has been filed by
the injured Prabhat Kukreti, issue no.1 is with regard to the rash and
negligence, which is as follows:-
"1. Whether the injured Prabhat sustained injuries in an
accident occurred on 11.10.2017 at 3:00 p.m. at place
Ratnogad, Chamba Dharashu motor marg, due to rash
and negligent driving of Truck No. UK07CC-0979, which
hit the motorcycle No. UK09-7238 whereby he sustained
injuries, if so, its effect."
12. In fact, claimants have adduced evidence with regard to the
negligence and the star witness is Prabhat Kukreti, the injured. He has
stated as to how the accident took place and after examining the
testimony of injured Prabhat Kukreti and other witnesses and
considering other facts, the Tribunal in first claim petition has observed
that "therefore, the claimants have succeeded to prove that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending truck bearing registration No. UK07CC-0797, which hit
the motorcycle of the deceased resulting the death of motorcyclist
Sri Rajesh Dangwal. The claimants have also proved that there was
no negligence on the part of the motorcyclist. It is also proved that
the deceased has sustained grievous hurt in the accident and he
ultimately died on the spot due to the accident. Accordingly the
issue no.1 is decided in favour of the claimants."
13. There is another aspect of the matter. How could the
Insurance Company say as to how the accident took place? They have
not adduced any evidence. It is stated that even the driver or owner of
the truck has not adduced any evidence. The best witness was the
injured witness Prabhat Kukreti. He has stated so. His evidence
remains uncontroverted, insofar as, the cause of accident is concerned.
14. In the second claim petition, filed by the injured Prabhat
Kukreti, the Tribunal has held that, in fact, the accident took place due
to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. As stated, the
testimony of the injured Prabhat Kukreti has not been controverted.
This Court has no reason to disturb this finding with regard to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, which resulted into an
accident, in which the deceased Rajesh Dangwal lost his life and injured
Prabhat Kukreti sustained injuries.
15. Insofar as, making the Insurance Company of the
motorcycle as a party, it loses its significance because there was no
negligence on the part of the Rajesh Dangwal, who was riding a
motorcycle at the relevant time. Therefore, this Court does not see any
reason to make any interference in these appeals. Accordingly, both
these appeals deserve to be dismissed.
16. Both these appeals are dismissed.
17. The statutory deposits made by the Insurance Company be
remitted to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The
appellant shall deposit the entire amount of award along with interest
within 30 days. In case, deposit is not made within the stipulated time,
the appellant Insurance Company shall be liable to pay interest @ 9%
per annum.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
19.02.2026
Jitendra
