Anant deep Randhawa and ot hers v. Reliance I nsurance Co. and ot hers, General whereby com pensat ion t o

Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for t he appellant .

2. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat and Mr. Mayank Pandey, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. preferred com pany t he assailing

3. The present Appeal from Order has appellant – insurance t he j udgm ent and award dat ed 23.02.2024 passed by t he Mot or Accident Claim s Tribunal / 2nd Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Kashipur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No. 141 of 2019, Anant deep Randhawa and ot hers vs. Reliance I nsurance Co. and ot hers, General whereby com pensat ion t o t he t une of ₹2,05,87,028/- along wit h int erest at t he rat e of 6% per annum from t he dat e of filing of t he claim pet it ion has been awarded in favour of t he claim ant s.

4. Brief fact s of t he case are t hat on 02.12.2018, at about 10: 30 p.m ., t he respondent no.1, nam ely husband of Pankit Sabbarwala, was t ravelling in his car bearing regist rat ion no. UK- 18F- 0900 and reached t he DS Road, T.P. Nagar int ersect ion t hat t im e, a Mahindra XUV- 500 bearing regist rat ion no. DL- 12- CA- 1922, being driven in a rash and negligent m anner, from Sect or- 63. At t o t he collided wit h t he rear door of t he said vehicle. As a result of t he accident , Pankit Sabbarwala sust ained grievous inj uries and was t aken t o Fort is Hospit al, where he succum bed inj uries during t reat m ent . FI R No. 1732 of 2018 regist ered at Dist rict Gaut am Buddha Nagar under Sect ions 279, 338, 304- A and 427 of t he I ndian Penal Code. The deceased was about 25 years of age and was a young and hardworking ent repreneur running a business under t he nam e “ St udy Overseas Consult ancy” . As per his incom e- t ax ret urn for t he year 2018, ₹26,41,150/- . His dem ise caused im m ense m ent al agony and financial loss t o t he claim ant s, who were deprived of his love, affect ion and fut ure support . unt im ely incom e annual t he t hat

5. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s learned Tribunal com m it t ed a m anifest error in fast ening t he ent ire liabilit y upon t he appellant – insurance com pany. I t is cont ended t hat t he accident occurred due t o rash and negligent driving of t he driver of vehicle no. UK- 18 F- 0900 and t hat t he case was one of cont ribut ory negligence. furt her argued t hat despit e a specific plea having been t aken in t he writ t en st at em ent , t he learned Tribunal failed t o fram e t o issue wit h cont ribut ory negligence and ignored t he m at erial evidence on record. regard I t

6. Learned counsel for t he appellant furt her subm it s t hat t he sit e plan clearly est ablishes cont ribut ory negligence, as t he accident occurred at a crossing. According t o t he sit e plan, t he vehicle of t he deceased was on t he highway, whereas t he ot her vehicle approached from a crossing at an angle of about 90 degrees. This crucial piece of evidence t he was not properly appreciat ed by learned Tribunal while passing t he im pugned award. t he provisions of

7. Learned counsel for t he appellant furt her cont ended t hat t he com pensat ion awarded by t he learned MACT is not in conform it y wit h t he Mot or Vehicles Act . I t was subm it t ed t hat t he Tribunal has erroneously assessed t he incom e of t he deceased, despit e t he fact t hat t he alleged incom e was neit her duly proved nor support ed by any cogent evidence. I t was furt her cont ended t hat t he Tribunal failed t o consider t hat t here was no loss of incom e, as t he deceased was engaged in a fam ily- run business, which cont inued t o operat e even aft er his dem ise. cont ra, learned

8. Per counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has vehem ent ly opposed t he subm issions advanced on behalf of t he appellant and im pugned award, has support ed cont ending t hat t he learned Tribunal has t he evidence and right ly appreciat ed reasonable awarded com pensat ion. j ust t he This Court has heard

9. learned counsel for t he part ies and has carefully perused t he ent ire m at erial available on record. Wit h regard t o t he cont ent ion of learned counsel for t he appellant t hat t he learned Tribunal erred in assessing t he t he deceased incom e of t he deceased, t his Court finds no subst ance in t he said subm ission. The claim ant s placed on record t he I ncom e Tax Ret urns of t he assessm ent years 2017–18, 2018–19 and 2019–20, which were duly proved by PW- 3, who verified t he said ret urns wit h t he original records of t he I ncom e Tax Depart m ent . On t he basis of t he said docum ent ary evidence, t he Tribunal correct ly assessed t he annual incom e of t he deceased by t aking t he average of t he t hree I TRs and right ly det erm ined the same to be ₹16,55,944/ - . Therefore, t his Court finds no error or illegalit y in t he det erm inat ion of t he annual incom e by t he learned MACT.

10. As regards t he furt her cont ent ion of learned counsel for t he appellant t hat t here was no loss of incom e on t he ground t hat t he deceased was running a fam ily business, t his Court finds t hat t he said cont ent ion is not support ed by any evidence on record. On t he cont rary, t he clearly pleadings t he est ablish propriet or of a firm under t he nam e and st yle of “ St udy Overseas Consult ancy” , and t he said business cannot be t erm ed as a fam ily business. docum ent s t he deceased was t hat

11. Upon considerat ion of t he evidence on record, part icularly t he sit e plan, t his Court is of t he view t hat t here was som e degree of cont ribut ory negligence on t he part of t he deceased. However, such cont ribut ory negligence appears t o be fact s and m arginal circum st ances of t he case, t his Court is of t he considered opinion t hat deduct ion in nat ure. t he I n 5% awarded t he com pensat ion on account of cont ribut ory t he ends of negligence would m eet j ust ice. t ot al st and

12. Accordingly, 5% of t he awarded deduct ed com pensat ion t owards cont ribut ory negligence, and t he rem aining com pensat ion am ount , along wit h int erest as awarded by t he learned Tribunal, shall be paid by t he appellant – insurance com pany. Appeal

13. The accordingly disposed of in t he aforesaid t erm s. from Order ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

19.12.2025 BS BALWAN T SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72 a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346 EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C 3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH