HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 308 of 2025 ^th Edelweiss General Insurance Company Ltd.

……Appellant/Insurance Company Versus Govindi Devi and Others ………Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’) has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned M.A.C.T./District Judge, Champawat in M.A.C.P. No. 13 of 2023, whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of ₹13,13,500/- in favour of the claimants.

2. There is a delay of 251 days in filing the present appeal. A delay condonation application (I.A. No. 1 of 2025) supported by an affidavit has been filed by the appellant. Cause shown is found sufficient. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application is allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that on 11.01.2023 at about 10:00 P.M., the deceased Rajendra Ram, aged 53 years, was travelling along with a cow and a calf in the Pickup No. UK03 CA 1653 from Village Pati to Village Jakh, Near Kimtoli, about one kilometre before Khalgada, the vehicle slipped into a deep ravine. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and was taken to District Hospital, Lohaghat, where he was declared dead. The claimants filed a petition seeking compensation of ₹32,70,000/-.

4. The parties filed oral and documentary evidence including the copy of Adhaar Card of the deceased, copy of family register, certified copy of G.D., copy of death certificate and copy of post-mortem report etc. On behalf of the Insurance Company in documentary evidence the copy of registration certificate of vehicle no.UK 03CA-1653, fitness certificate, copy of tax certificate, copy of pollution certificate of the vehicle, thereafter, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether on 11.01.2023, Rajendra Ram (deceased) was travelling in the vehicle of Opposite Party No.1 Vikas Singh Patni bearing No. UK 03 CA-1653 (pick-up) from Pati to his home in Village Jakh carrying a cow and a calf from his relatives for his own rearing. When the vehicle reached Kimtoli about 1 kilometer before Khalgada between Khalgada and Kimtoli on the Lohaghat Pulla Motorway at around 10:00 P.M., the driver/opponent No.1 caused the vehicle to crash due to rash and negligent driving and the vehicle crashed into a ditch. Rajendra Ram, who was carrying his own cargo, the cow and calf sustained serious and fatal injuries. With the help of villagers the rescue team and police, the deceased was brought to the Lohaghat Dub-District Hopsital in a private vehicle, where doctors declared him dead on arrival?

ii) Whether on 11.01.2023, the deceased Rajendra Ram was travelling in the pick-up vehicle No. UK- 03-CA-1653 of Opposite Party No.1 (Vikas Singh Patni) from Pati to Village Jakh, carrying his own cow and calf, and whether the vehicle, driven rashly and negligently by Opposite Party No.2, met with an accident near Kimtoli at about 10:00 P.M., resulting in the vehicle falling into a ditch and causing fatal injuries to the deceased, who was declared dead on arrival at the Lohaghat Sub-

District Hospital.

iii) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Opposite Party No.2, and if so, what were the consequences thereof?

iv) Whether Opposite Party No.2, the driver of the vehicle, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and was driving in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, and if so, what is its legal effect?

v) Whether there was any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the vehicle owner.

vi) Whether the vehicle was d