Appellants vs Smt. Anita Rani & Others on 24 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                        REPORTABLE

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Appeal from Order No.365 of 2012
Kulwant Singh & others
                                                       --Appellants
                               Versus

Smt. Anita Rani & others


                                                     --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Raveendra Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Pawan Sanwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 and
6-Claimants.
Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mohd.
Shafy, learned counsel for respondent no.7-Insurance Company.
Mr. Neeraj Uprety, learned counsel for respondent nos.8, 9 & 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 21.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.18,18,872/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till actual payment was made, was awarded in favour of the claimants on account of the death of Rajkumar, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident dated 10.10.2004. The appellants herein are the owner and driver of the tractor- trolley, who were arrayed as respondent nos. 1 to 4 before the Tribunal. The appeal has been preferred assailing the fastening of liability upon them and seeking absolution on the ground that the insurance company ought to have been held liable.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2004 at about 7:40 PM, deceased Rajkumar was

travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration no. DL- 1CB-3975, which was proceeding on the Shahabad - Rampur road. When the vehicle reached near Peer Baba, a tractor-trolley bearing registration no. HR-02-L-2967 came ahead of the car. It was alleged that the tractor- trolley was being driven rashly and negligently, without any indicator or signal. The driver of the tractor-trolley suddenly applied brakes, as a result of which the Maruti car collided with the rear portion of the trolley. Rajkumar sustained grievous injuries in the accident and was taken to hospital, where he ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 17.10.2004. An FIR was lodged in respect of the accident, and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the tractor-trolley. The claim petition was filed by the widow, minor children and parents of the deceased under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, pleading that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor- trolley.

3. It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was aged about 33 years, was employed on a permanent post, and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.8,305/-. It was further pleaded that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and that his death resulted in immense financial hardship and mental agony to the dependants. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-, together with interest.

4. The owner and driver of the tractor-trolley filed their written statement denying the allegations of negligence. It was pleaded that the accident did not occur due to any fault on their part and that the tractor-trolley was being driven carefully and at a slow speed. It was

further pleaded that the tractor was duly insured, was being driven by a licensed driver, and that in any case, the insurance company was liable to indemnify them. The appellants also raised a plea that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti car.

5. The insurance company filed its written statement disputing its liability. It was specifically pleaded that although the tractor was insured, the tractor-trolley involved in the accident was neither registered nor insured on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that the trolley was being used in violation of the policy conditions and statutory provisions. On the said grounds, the insurance company claimed that it was not liable to satisfy the award.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether on 10.10.2004 at about 7:40 PM, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor trolley bearing registration no. HR-02-L-2967, resulting in the death of Rajkumar on 17.10.2004? If so, its effect?

2. Whether at the time of the accident, the tractor trolley bearing registration no. HR-02-L-2967 was duly insured, registered and being driven by a licensed driver, and if so, its effect?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom?

7. While deciding issue No. 1, the Tribunal considered the oral testimony of the witnesses, documentary evidence including FIR, site plan, charge- sheet and post-mortem report. The Tribunal recorded a

finding that the tractor-trolley was being driven rashly and negligently. It was held that the tractor-trolley driver suddenly applied brakes without giving any signal or indicator, resulting in collision with the Maruti car. The Tribunal rejected the plea of contributory negligence and held that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the tractor-trolley driver. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants.

8. While deciding Issue No. 2, the Tribunal examined the evidence produced by the insurance company and the owner. The Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that although the tractor was insured, the tractor trolley attached to it was not insured and was also not registered on the date of the accident. The Tribunal further held that the trolley formed an integral part of the vehicle at the time of the accident and that the accident occurred due to the use of both tractor and trolley. On this basis, the Tribunal held that the insurance company could not be made liable and that the liability was required to be borne by the owner and driver of the tractor-trolley. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 was decided against the insurance company and in favour of the claimants.

9. While deciding Issue No. 3, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on the basis of the salary certificate placed on record and determined the annual income. Future prospects were added, deductions towards personal expenses were made, and the appropriate multiplier was applied considering the age of the deceased. Compensation was also awarded under conventional heads including loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In this manner, the

Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,18,872/- together with interest, holding the owner and driver jointly and severally liable.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants-owner and driver of the tractor-trolley, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company and respondents/claimants and upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal along with the record of the case, this Court proceeds to examine the limited question as to liability. The Tribunal has returned a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trolley. The said finding on negligence has not been shown to be perverse or contrary to the evidence on record and, therefore, does not call for any interference.

11. During the pendency of the present appeal, a supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 - the Insurance Company. In the said affidavit, it has been candidly and unequivocally admitted annexing the certificate of insurance of the tractor that an insurance policy was issued in respect of the offending tractor in the name of the insured and that under the said policy, premium was received not only towards third-party liability of the tractor but also towards third-party liability in respect of the trailer attached thereto.

12. The aforesaid admission materially alters the foundation on which Issue No. 2 was decided by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal had proceeded on the premise that although the tractor was insured, the trailer attached to it was neither registered nor insured, and

therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the insured. However, in view of the categorical stand now taken by the Insurance Company itself, it stands established that third-party risk in respect of both the tractor and the attached trailer stood duly covered under the policy on the date of the accident.

13. Once it is admitted by the insurer that premium was received for covering third-party liability of both the tractor and the trailer, the question of indemnifying the liability fastened upon the respondent- Insurance Company. The very basis for absolving the Insurance Company of liability, as recorded by the Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 2, thus stands eroded by subsequent admission.

14. It is well settled that where a valid and subsisting policy of insurance covers the offending vehicle and the risk in question, the insurer is statutorily bound under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to satisfy the award passed in favour of third-party claimants. In the present case, in view of the admitted coverage of third-party risk qua the tractor as well as the trailer attached thereto, the liability to satisfy the award squarely rests upon respondent no. 7 - Insurance Company.

15. In light of the aforesaid admitted position, the finding returned by the Tribunal under Issue No. 2, to the extent it absolves the Insurance Company and fastens liability upon the owner and driver, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Issue No. 2 is answered by holding that the offending vehicle, including the trailer attached thereto, was duly covered under a valid policy of insurance covering third-party risk, and

therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured.

16. Consequently, the fastening of liability upon the appellants-owner and driver of the tractor-trolley is liable to be set aside. The Insurance Company shall be solely liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal along with interest as directed therein.

17. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 21.04.2012 is modified to the extent that respondent no. 7 - Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the entire awarded compensation along with accrued interest to the claimants. The liability fastened upon the appellants- owner and driver is set aside.

18. The Insurance Company shall satisfy the entire awarded amount of Rs. 18,18,872/- along with interest as directed by the Tribunal; however, since a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited by the appellants towards the statutory deposit, the said amount shall be duly returned to the appellants. The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire amount of compensation as awarded to respondents/claimants along with interest awarded before Tribunal concerned within two months from today. Needless to say that respondents/claimants shall receive the entire amount of compensation so deposited as per their share as directed by learned Tribunal.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.02.2026 AK