NAINITAL v. Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the

Brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2021, Ankit alias Ankit Kumar, employed as a tractor driver in Village Lacheda, was returning on foot to his native 1 village Hathi Karoda at about 6:30 a.m. When he reached near the Indian Oil Petrol Pump on the Bypass Road, he was hit by an unknown vehicle being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot. Thereafter, a shopkeeper near the place of occurrence informed the police, who conducted the panchnama (inquest) treating the deceased as an unidentified person, and the post-mortem was conducted at the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. Subsequently, the respondents/claimants identified the body as that of Ankit Kumar at Police Station Shahpur and performed the last rites. The FIR was lodged on 22.07.2021 against an unknown driver and vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that initially, the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle and driver, and it was only at a highly belated stage that motorcycle No.UP- 12-AP-5992 (insured with the appellant) was introduced into the case; that, this raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the claim petition, which ought to have been dismissed at the threshold.

4. He has further submitted that the claim itself is suspicious because the deceased was a permanent resident of Karaunda, District Shamli (U.P.), the accident 2 occurred at Shahpur, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.), but the claim petition was filed at Chamoli, Uttarakhand thus making the entire claim doubtful and jurisdictionally defective.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the panchnama did not specifically mention that the death occurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident, which is a primary requirement for awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and unsustainable.

6. He has further submitted that the alleged eyewitness (a shopkeeper) who claimed to have seen the accident did not mention the number of the motorcycle involved, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of his testimony and the genuineness of the entire claim. Additionally, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 72,000/- per annum and further erred in granting 40% addition towards future prospects, which is legally untenable and deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that at the time when the panchnama and post- mortem were conducted, the identity of the deceased was 3 unknown. However, during the course of investigation, it was established that the deceased was Ankit Kumar, the son of the claimant.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned MACT rightly assumed jurisdiction, as Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides that every application under sub-section (1) may, at the option of the claimant, be filed before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction either over the area where the accident occurred, or where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant (including the insurance company) resides or carries on business.

9. In support of his submission, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 43, wherein it has been held that a claim petition may be filed at a place where the insurance company has its business or branch office, even if the accident or the claimant’s permanent residence is elsewhere. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- “16. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with facilitating the victims of accidents. remedies the object of 4 in such cases, has Hypertechnical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which the main contesting party business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 244, the contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained……”

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

12. At the outset, the contention of the appellant that the claim petition ought to have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction is not sustainable. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, clearly provides that a claim petition can be filed, at the option of the claimant, before the Tribunal having jurisdiction either over the area where the accident occurred, or where the claimant resides, or where the defendant (including the insurance company) carries on business.

13. In the present case, the claim petition was filed at Chamoli, where the branch office of the insurance 5 company (appellant) is situated. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 43, no fault can be found with the filing of the claim petition at Chamoli. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly exercised its jurisdiction.

14. Coming to the second contention regarding the genuineness of the claim, it is evident from the record that immediately after the accident, the deceased was treated as an unidentified person, and both the panchnama and post-mortem were carried out accordingly. Subsequently, upon identification by the claimants, the deceased was confirmed to be Ankit Kumar. The delay in lodging the FIR, as explained by the claimants on account of the shock and grief caused by the sudden death and the ill health of the deceased’s mother, has been found satisfactory by the Tribunal. There is no material on record to suggest that such explanation was improbable or concocted.

15. The appellant’s objection that the involvement of the motorcycle No. UP-12-AP-5992 was introduced belatedly is also without merit. The Tribunal has carefully examined evidence, including statements of the eyewitness and the investigating officer, 6 and concluded that the said motorcycle was involved in the accident. The appellant failed to adduce any cogent evidence to rebut the said finding.

16. The argument that the panchnama does not specifically mention that the death occurred due to a motor vehicle accident is also untenable. The panchnama and post-mortem report clearly record external and internal injuries consistent with those sustained in a vehicular accident. Moreover, the police report and subsequent investigation corroborate that the death resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle.

17. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal assessed the annual income of the deceased at Rs.72,000/- and added 40% towards future prospects, applying the multiplier of 18 considering the age of the deceased. The Tribunal also awarded conventional sums under non-pecuniary heads. The assessment made by the Tribunal is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The compensation awarded cannot, therefore, be termed excessive or arbitrary. 7

18. It is a settled principle that in motor accident claims, a liberal approach is to be adopted while assessing evidence computing compensation. The Tribunal has analyzed the entire material evidence in proper perspective and recorded a well reasoned finding. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment and award impugned.

19. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and award dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli, in MACP No. 02 of 2022, is affirmed.

20. 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 claimants as per the directions of the Tribunal.

21. No order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 15.10.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28 cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418 755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH 8