High Court · 2025

Mr. Am it Kapri, Advocat e for t he appellant . Mr. Raj esh Joshi, Advocat e respondent nos.1 t o 3. Mr. Mani Kum ar, Advocat e respondent no.4. t he This Appeal from Order has been 2. t he appellant –I nsurance preferred by Com pany assailing j udgm ent and award dat ed 30.11.2024, passed by t he learned Mot or Accident Claim s Tribunal/ Dist rict Judge, Nainit al, in M.A.C.P. No. 145 of 2022, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded com pensat ion in favour of t he claim ant s on account of t he deat h of Sm t . Pushpa Kandpal in a m ot or vehicle accident . t he reached The brief fact s, as em erging from 3. t he record, are t hat on 10.12.2017 at about 05: 00 p.m ., t he deceased, Sm t . t ravelling as a Pushpa Kandpal, was pillion rider on m ot orcycle bearing regist rat ion no. UK- 06- AP- 3282, being driven by one Kam al Singh Fart yal. When t hey near Kichha Road, Bhadaipura, Rudrapur, a t ruck bearing regist rat ion no. UP- 25- CT- 4435, com ing in a rash and negligent from behind m anner, collided t he said m ot orcycle. As a im pact , t he deceased was t hrown off t he m ot orcycle and sust ained severe inj uries. She was init ially t aken t o Am rit Hospit al, Rudrapur, t hen referred t o Dr. Sushila Tiwari Hospit al, Haldwani, and t hereaft er wit h result of t he t o Shri Ram Murt i Hospit al, adm it t ed Bareilly, where she succum bed t o her inj uries on 03.01.2018 during t reat m ent . The appellant / I nsurance Com pany 4. has challenged im pugned award t he prim arily on t wo grounds: first , t hat t he learned Tribunal has erred in holding t hat t he accident occurred due t o cont ribut ory negligence of bot h t he drivers, i.e., of t he m ot orcycle and t he t ruck; second, t hat t he Tribunal erred in assessing t he t he deceased at m ont hly ₹20,000/- in t he absence of any cogent docum ent ary proof of such incom e for t he year 2017. incom e of Learned counsel for t he appellant 5. subm it s t hat t he finding of cont ribut ory negligence recorded by t he Tribunal is perverse and cont rary t o t he evidence on record. I t is argued t hat t he evidence clearly est ablishes t hat t he t ruck hit t he m ot orcycle t hereby indicat ing negligence solely on t he part furt her t he cont ended t he case of t he claim ant s cont ribut ory negligence, are ent it led t o seek com pensat ion t o t he ext ent at t ribut able t o t he negligence of each vehicle. t ruck driver. t hat even behind, I t t he t hat counsel regards incom e of t he 6. As t he learned deceased, appellant subm it s t he Tribunal com m it t ed error in assum ing a m ont hly income of ₹20,000/- in t he absence of any docum ent ary proof. According t o t he t he year 2017, such appellant , assum pt ion excessive unsupport ed by record.

7. Per cont ra, learned counsel for t he respondent s cont ends t hat t he accident t he t he st ruck vehicle result of rash and was clearly negligent driving on t he part of t he t ruck driver, as t he m ot orcycle from behind. I t was furt her subm it t ed t hat t he claim ant s have placed on record t he bank st at em ent of t he t he year 2015–2016, deceased showing her m ont hly earnings t o be more than ₹30,000/- , which j ust ified t he Tribunal’s finding. Learned counsel also placed j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Khenyei Vs. New I ndia Assurance Co. Lt d. & Ors., report ed in ( 2015) 9 SCC 273, t o subm it t hat where vehicles are negligence, involved claim ant s can recover full com pensat ion from any one of t he j oint t ort feasors. com posit e reliance t he

8. Having heard learned counsel for t he part ies and perused t he record, t his Court is of t he considered view t hat t here is no infirm it y in t he conclusion reached learned Tribunal eit her wit h respect t o t he assessm ent of negligence com pensat ion. The award does not call for int erference in appellat e j urisdict ion. com put at ion incom e t he

9. Accordingly, t he Appeal from Order fails and is dism issed.

10. The st at ut ory am ount , if deposit ed by t he appellant at t he t im e of filing t he appeal, shall be rem it t ed t o t he Tribunal concerned for adj ust m ent t owards t he award am ount . The balance am ount , if any, shall be released in favour of t he claim ant s as per t he direct ions of t he Tribunal. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

18.12.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a 20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109C B987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL