[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
AO/170/2020 on 3 January, 2026
2026:UHC:75
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
A.O. No.170 of 2020
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate for the
appellant.
Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for
respondent no.1.
2. This Appeal from Order has been
preferred by the appellant-Insurance
Company assailing the judgment and
award dated 24.01.2020, passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/
Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar,
Dehradun, in M.A.C.P. No. 18 of 2019,
whereby the learned Tribunal has
awarded compensation to the tune of
₹1,79,860/- in favour of the claimant on
account of the death of Shri Hariram
Sahni in a motor vehicle accident.
3. The brief facts, as borne out from
the record, are that on 02.02.2019, the
deceased Hariram Sahni, along with his
wife Smt. Menka Sahni (respondent no.1
herein), was returning from Anuruddha
Ashram, Langha to Vikasnagar on a
motorcycle bearing registration No. UK-
16-4822. At about 01:00 p.m., when
they reached near village Papdiyan, the
driver of Truck bearing registration No.
UGY-8499, coming from Barwala, drove
the said truck at a very high speed, in a
rash and negligent manner and on the
wrong side of the road, and dashed
against the motorcycle, as a result of
which Hariram Sahni suffered grievous
injuries and died on the spot, while Smt.
Menka Sahni sustained serious injuries
on her head, legs and mouth.
2026:UHC:75
4. The appellant-Insurance Company
has questioned the impugned award
primarily on the ground that the accident
was the outcome of contributory or, at
any rate, composite negligence on the
part of both the vehicles, i.e., the truck
as well as the motorcycle ridden by the
deceased. It is argued that the learned
Tribunal fell in error in fastening the
entire liability on the truck and its insurer
and in not apportioning negligence
between the drivers of the two vehicles,
thereby saddling the appellant with an
unjust burden.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant,
adverting to issue nos. 1 and 2 framed
by the Tribunal, strenuously contends
that the findings returned thereon are
perverse, contrary to the weight of the
evidence and suffer from non-
consideration of material circumstances.
He submits that the Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the deceased, being the
rider of the motorcycle, was under a
statutory and common law duty to keep
a proper lookout, maintain a safe speed,
and adhere to traffic rules, and that his
omission in that regard substantially
contributed to the occurrence of the
accident, thereby attracting the doctrine
of contributory negligence. It is further
argued that once there are two colliding
motor vehicles, and the deceased himself
was in control of one of them, the
possibility of composite negligence could
not have been ruled out, and the
Tribunal erred in proceeding as if the
truck driver alone was solely responsible.
7. Per contra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.1 supports
the impugned award and submits that
the learned Tribunal has recorded a well-
2026:UHC:75
reasoned finding, upon due appreciation
of the pleadings, ocular evidence and
documentary material, that the accident
was the direct and proximate result of
rash and negligent driving by the Truck
driver alone. He submits that the
evidence on record clearly demonstrates
that the truck was being driven on the
wrong side of the road, and without due
care, and that the motorcycle was hit in
such a manner that no reasonable
inference of contributory negligence on
the part of the deceased could be drawn.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Khenyei Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in
(2015) 9 SCC 273, to submit that where
vehicles are involved in composite
negligence, claimants can recover full
compensation from any one of the joint
tortfeasors.
6. This Court has carefully considered
the rival submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and has examined the
record of the learned Tribunal, including
the pleadings, oral depositions, site plan
and other contemporaneous documents
relied upon by the parties. Learned
Tribunal has, after an elaborate
discussion, recorded a categorical finding
that the driver of the offending truck was
driving the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and that the accident
occurred solely on account of his
actionable negligence, and such finding is
rooted in the evidence brought on record
and not on presumptions.
7. A Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi & others, reported in (2017) 16
2026:UHC:75
SCC 680, has laid down clear guidelines
for determining compensation in motor
accident claims. This Court finds that the
compensation awarded to the claimant is
just, reasonable, and in consonance with
the settled parameters laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The award
passed by the learned Tribunal neither
suffers from any perversity nor warrants
interference in appellate jurisdiction.
8. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order
fails and is dismissed.
9. The statutory amount, if deposited
by the appellant at the time of filing the
appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal
concerned for adjustment towards the
award amount. The balance amount, if
any, shall be released in favour of the
claimant as per the directions of the
Tribunal.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
03.01.2026
Arpan
ARPAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654
45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e,
JAISWAL
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C
5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66,
cn=ARPAN JAISWAL
Date: 2026.01.03 15:50:14 +05'30'
