Unknown vs Regional Manager on 2 January, 2026

                                                                      2026:UHC:32


              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions               COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               AO No.411 of 2022
                               Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the appellants.

2. Mr. Naresh Pant and Mr. Raunak Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.1/insurance company.

3. Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3.

4. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 20.09.2022, made by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.01 of 2019, "Phool Singh and Others vs. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Others", by which, the said petition, filed by the claimants, has been dismissed.

5. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 24.09.2018 at about 10:30 p.m., near Bel Baba Temple, the son of appellant no.1-Shyam Singh and Ibrahim S/o Sufi Kabir, resident of Katra Bazaar Petrol Pump, along with his son Sunil, had come to Haldwani in Truck No. UP-27T- 5454. While Sunil was standing nearby, a vehicle bearing registration No. UK-06R- 3031, coming from Haldwani towards Rudrapur, struck Ibrahim and Shyam Singh. As a result of the said accident, 2026:UHC:32

Ibrahim died on the spot, whereas Shyam Singh succumbed to his injuries during the course of treatment at the hospital. The driver of the offending vehicle fled from the place of occurrence. The incident was witnessed by Sunil, Lalit Mohan Joshi, and other passers-by. In relation to the said incident, FIR No. 0329 of 2018 was lodged at Police Station Haldwani on 10.10.2018 by appellant no.1, Phool Singh.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the aforesaid accident two persons, namely Ibrahim and Shyam Singh, lost their lives. The legal heirs of deceased Ibrahim preferred Claim Petition No. 67 of 2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haldwani, District Nainital, which was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2019. The present appellants, being the legal heirs of deceased Shyam Singh, filed a separate claim petition before the MACT, Udham Singh Nagar; however, the said claim petition came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2022, which is the subject matter of the present appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that both the claim petitions arose out of the very same accident and that Lalit Mohan Joshi was examined as an eyewitness in both proceedings. The insurance company did not challenge the award dated 14.11.2019 passed by the MACT, Haldwani, and the compensation awarded therein was duly paid to the claimants.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that in their written 2026:UHC:32

statements the insurance company deliberately suppressed the material fact that compensation had already been awarded and paid in respect of the same accident by another Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It was urged that the learned Tribunal below failed to appreciate that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and that the entire family was dependent upon his income. While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal failed to consider that compensation was the only means of financial sustenance available to the dependents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in disregarding the testimony of the eyewitness Lalit Mohan Joshi, whose deposition clearly established that deceased Shyam Singh died as a result of the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidentiary value of the eyewitness testimony and consequently passed an order which is illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference on account of alleged delay in lodging the FIR and further erred in holding against the claimants on the ground that Sunil, another eyewitness, was not examined. It was contended that once a reliable eyewitness had been examined, there was no legal compulsion to examine each and every eyewitness. The Tribunal also failed to consider the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle, wherein 2026:UHC:32

he admitted that the accident occurred due to sleepiness, fog, and rainy conditions.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that the claim petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitness Lalit Mohan Joshi.

12. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have meticulously perused the record. This Court finds that there is no material contradiction in the statement of the eyewitness Lalit Mohan Joshi. Moreover, an award has already been passed in Claim Petition No. 67 of 2019 by the MACT, Haldwani, District Nainital, arising out of the very same accident, thereby establishing the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle.

13. It stands proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. UK-06R-3031, which was duly insured with respondent no.1/insurance company at the relevant point of time. Appellant nos.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased, while appellant nos.3 and 4 are the wife and minor son respectively. All the appellants were wholly dependent upon the income of the deceased.

14. The deceased was serving as a Constable in the Uttarakhand Fire Service and was drawing a gross monthly salary of ₹32,382/-. After 2026:UHC:32

statutory deductions, his net monthly income stood at ₹28,595/-. The age of the deceased at the time of the accident was 30 years and 5 months.

15. In view of the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the appropriate multiplier applicable in the present case is 17.

16. After deducting one-fourth of the income towards personal and living expenses, the monthly contribution to the family is assessed at ₹21,446.25/-.

On adding 50% towards future prospects, the monthly income is assessed at ₹32,169.38/-. The annual income thus comes to ₹3,86,032.50/-. Applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency is assessed at ₹65,62,553/-.

17. The claimants are further entitled to compensation under conventional heads, namely, ₹15,000/- towards loss of estate, ₹1,60,000/- towards loss of consortium (₹40,000/- each to four claimants), and ₹15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

18. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the MACT/Second Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in MACT No. 01 of 2019, Phool Singh and others vs. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company and others, is hereby set aside. The total compensation payable to the claimants by the insurance company/ respondent no.1 is 2026:UHC:32

assessed at ₹67,52,553/- (Rupees Sixty-

Seven Lakh Fifty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Fifty-Three only), together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, payable within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The amount of compensation shall be paid proportionately to the claimants, i.e., 25% to each claimant. The share of compensation awarded to claimant no. 4 shall be kept in a fixed deposit until he attains the age of majority.

(Alok Mahra, J.) 02.01.2026 BS BALWANT Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28

SINGH cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418 755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2026.01.03 15:41:58 +05'30'