SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(UK) 184

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ALOK MAHRA, J.
Mahrunisha Alias Babbo and Others - Appellants
Versus
Deep Chandra and Others - Respondents
Appeal From Order No. 261 of 2022 With Appeal From Order No. 241 of 2023 
Decided On : 10-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B.S. Koranga, proxy counsel for Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel, Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learnd counsel

Where tribunal inadequately adjudicates insurance coverage, validity of driving licence, permit and compensation quantum in fatal accident claim, High Court remands for fresh consideration with additional evidence opportunity.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 158(6), 168 and 173 - Appeals from order against tribunal award in fatal motor accident claim - Tribunal held accident due to rash and negligent driving of bus, awarded compensation but fastened liability on owner and driver holding insurer not liable for lack of intimation, invalid documents - Owner's review application rejected despite insurance documents - Issues of insurance coverage, validity of driving licence, registration, permit and quantum of compensation not conclusively adjudicated - Matter remanded for fresh decision granting opportunity to file additional documentary evidence. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Deceased travelling in jeep collided head-on by oncoming bus driven rashly and negligently, sustained grievous injuries and died. Claimants, family members and dependents, filed claim petition asserting deceased sole bread earner. Tribunal awarded compensation but held owner and driver liable, exonerating insurer. Claimants appealed for enhancement, owner challenged award and review rejection.

Findings of Court:
Judgment and award as well as review order set aside. Matter remanded to tribunal for expeditious fresh adjudication within nine months, permitting additional evidence on insurance, statutory documents and compensation quantum.

Issues: Whether accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus resulting in death; whether driver held valid driving licence and owner valid registration, permit, insurance; quantum of compensation and liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability fastened without proper appreciation of evidence; grievances on insurance coverage, statutory compliance and compensation adequacy require reconsideration - remand necessary for complete adjudication. Result : Appeals allowed.

Table of Content
1. appeals from tribunal award in fatal accident claim. (Para 1 , 2)
2. owner denies negligence; insurer denies liability for invalid documents. (Para 3 , 4)
3. tribunal finds rash driving, awards compensation, absolves insurer. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. owner claims insurance; insurer seeks remand; claimants want enhancement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. insurance coverage and documents inadequately appreciated by tribunal. (Para 11)
6. remanded for fresh adjudication on liability and quantum. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

Judgment :

Alok Mahra, J.

These two appeals from order, namely A.O. No. 261 of 2022 and A.O. No. 241 of 2023, arise out of the common judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No. 275 of 2019. The Appeal from Order No. 261 of 2022 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, as the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,18,000/- only, which according to the claimants is inadequate. /-. A.O. No. 241 of 2023 has been filed by the owner of the offending bus, challenging not only the judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 but also the order dated 30.09.2022, whereby the review application filed by him was rejected by the learned Tribunal.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 17.06.2016 at about 2:00 p.m., the deceased was travelling in his Jeep bearing registration No. HR-08B-4593, when the deceased reached near Samiya Lake City, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, a bus bearing registration No. UA-04B-2628 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and violently collided with the jeep. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed thereto. It was pleaded that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family, and the claimants, therefore, filed a claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-.

3. The driver and owner of the offending bus filed a joint written statement denying the allegations of rash and negligent driving. It was asserted that the bus was being driven at a moderate speed; that, the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence; that, the vehicle had valid registration, permit and insurance on the date of accident; and in case of award of compensation, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the same.

4. The Insurance Company (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.), in its written statement, denied its liability on the grounds that no intimation under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was given; that, on the date of accident, the offending vehicle had no valid permit or statutory documents; that, the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence.

5. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether on 17.06.2016 at about 2:00 p.m., near Samiya Lake City on Rudrapur–Gadarpur Road, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. UA-04B-2628, resulting in the death of the deceased? If so, its effect?

ii) Whether on the date, time and place of the accident, the driver of the bus was holding a valid driving licence and whether the owner possessed valid registration certificate, permit and insurance policy? If so, what would be its effect?

iii) To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from which opposite party?

6. On behalf of the claimants, documentary evidence was filed, including Chik FIR and FIR, Charge- sheet, Site plan, Post-mortem report of the deceased, Driving licence of the deceased, Registration certificate, permit and pollution certificate of the offending vehicle, Aadhaar cards of the claimants.

7. The learned Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. The claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,18,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal fast

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top