HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 251 of 2024

18 September, 2025

The New India Assurance Company ….…..Appellant

Versus

Savitri and others ………….Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. D C S Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company.

Ms. Sazia Parveen proxy counsel for Mr. Parikshit Sani, learned

counsel respondent nos. 1 to 5.

Despite sufficient service, none has put in appearance on behalf of

respondent no.7.

No representation for respondent no.8.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

The present appeal under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 27.04.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C.P. No. 18 of 2020, whereby compensation of ₹15,37,250/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents against the appellant/Insurance

Company.

2. The case of the claimants, as pleaded in the claim petition, is that on 24.12.2018 at about 5:00 a.m.,

the deceased Deshraj was driving a tractor-trolley bearing registration no. UK-17A-0839 loaded with poplar wood to Jamuna Nagar Timber Market. Respondent no. 8, the tractor driver, drove the vehicle rashly and negligently near Sugar Mill, Saharanpur, as a result of which the tractor-trolley climbed over a divider, causing fatal injuries to Deshraj. It was alleged that the entire fault lay with driver i.e. respondent no. 8 and that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family. The claimants accordingly claimed compensation of ₹45,45,000/-.

3. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident dated 24.12.2018 at about 5:00 a.m. occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley no. UK- 17A-0839 by respondent no. 8, resulting in the death of Deshraj?

ii. Whether the driver of the tractor had valid and effective driving licence, permit, insurance, fitness, and other documents at the time of accident. iii. Compensation.

4. In support of their claim, the claimants relied upon documents including the insurance policy of the tractor, FIR, charge-sheet, post-mortem report, map, Aadhar cards and educational certificates. Smt. Savitri (PW-1) and Ramdas (PW-2) were examined in oral evidence. On behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, Mahendra Rawat (DW-1) and Nishant Uniyal (DW-2) were examined. Documentary evidence included the insurance policy, driving licence and enquiry report. Respondent no. 8, the driver, also filed written statement denying negligence and asserting that he possessed a valid licence and that the vehicle was duly insured. The appellant/Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied liability and pleaded that the tractor was meant solely for agricultural use, had only one authorized seat, and was not permitted to carry any other person. It was further contended that the deceased, being an unauthorized passenger, fell outside the policy coverage and therefore the insurer could not be held liable.

8. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award, as above. On issue no. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 8, and decided the issue in favour of the claimants. On issue no. 2, the Tribunal found that the driver possessed a valid and effective licence and that the vehicle was insured and had valid documents. On issue no. 3, the Tribunal found that though the deceased was travelling as a passenger unauthorisedly in the tractor, which amounted to violation of policy conditions, yet applying the principle of "pay and recover," the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation first and recover it fr