HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No.234 of 2011 Smt. Tara Devi --Appellant Versus ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. --Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated- 08.12.2025 Presence:

Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Bharat Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

Mr. Ashish Belwal, learned counsel i/b Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)

1) This Appeal from Order is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the Judgment and Award dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 194 of 2009, Smt. Tara Devi v. Shri Ramdas and others, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and compensation of only Rs 92,000/- along with 7% annual interest from the date of filing of the petition was awarded in favour of the appellant- claimant. The appellant-claimant seeks enhancement of compensation to Rs 15,00,000/-, as originally claimed before the Tribunal.

2) The facts of the case, as reflected in the record, disclose that the appellant-claimant, Smt. Tara Devi, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of her son, Umesh Chandra Pandey, who died in a motor accident on the intervening night of 16/17 June 2006. The appellant-claimant pleaded that at about midnight, the deceased was returning to Lalkuan from his duty at Shri Shyam Enterprises, Rudrapur, on motorcycle No. UK-04-F-6111 when, on reaching Nursery Gate, Lalkuan, a truck bearing No. MP-06E-0447, coming from the opposite direction, was driven rashly and negligently by its driver and violently struck the motorcycle. The deceased sustained serious injuries and was taken successively to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, Haldwani, then Krishna Hospital, and thereafter to Bareilly, where he succumbed during treatment. An FIR was lodged the next morning. It was stated that the deceased was employed with a private company on a monthly salary of Rs 4,426/- and, being a diploma holder in wireless, he supplemented his income by working as a private electrical engineer earning about Rs 10,000/- per month. The appellant-claimant asserted that she was entirely dependent on him and had suffered great economic and emotional loss, and therefore sought compensation of Rs 15,00,000/-.

3) The appellant-claimant contends that the impugned Judgment and Award dated 25.03.2011 suffers from serious legal and factual infirmities and is contrary to the evidence brought on record. It is argued that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the relevant circumstances, including the fact that the appellant- claimant is a helpless lady fully dependent on the deceased. The Tribunal, according to the appellant- claimant, wrongly applied a multiplier of 5 on the basis of the appellant-claimant’s age, whereas it is a settled principle of law that the multiplier must be determined with reference to the age of the deceased, who was only 27 years old. The appellant-claimant further asserts that the Tribunal ignored documentary evidence establishing the income of the deceased, including his salary certificate showing monthly earnings of Rs. 4,426/- (excluding allowances), and reliable oral evidence that he additionally earned around Rs. 10,000/- per month from electrical work owing to his diploma and technical qualifications. It is argued that treating such a qualified young man as an unskilled, unemployed, illiterate worker for the purpose of income assessment is wholly arbitrary and unsupported by the evidence.

4) It is further submitted by the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal erred in both selection of the multiplier and assessment of dependency, and that the deduction of one-half of the income instead of one- third is contrary to established legal norms. The appellant-claimant maintains that the Tribunal decided the claim petition on conjectures