HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No.183 of 2014

07^th October, 2025

Mahendra Pratap --Appellant

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Ors. --Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Basant Singh, learned counsel i/b Mr. Harshpal Sekhon,

learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Pramod Belwal, learned counsel for respondent no.5.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

1) This appeal has been preferred by the owner of the

offending vehicle bearing registration Bolero No.UK06-J- 9998 assailing the judgment and award dated 07.03.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No. 207 of 2009 (Rita Sharma and Others vs. Mahendra Pratap and Others), whereby the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,43,000/-, payable by the insurance company (respondent no. 5), with interest at 6% per annum from

12.01.2010 till realization.

2) The brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2009 at about

4:45 p.m., the deceased- Neeraj Kumar, aged about 30 years, was travelling to Rudrapur on his motorcycle when an oncoming Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. UK 06 J 9998 collided head-on with his motorcycle. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot.

The Tribunal decided the claim petition as mentioned hereinabove.

3) The claimants—his widow Rita Sharma and two dependent children—filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation from the owner, driver, and insurer of the offending vehicle. It was stated that the deceased was working as a Sales Executive with Maruti Udyog Ltd., earning around Rs. 8,000/- per month, and was the sole earning member of the family.

4) The claimant further alleged that after the death of her husband, her in-laws (respondents no. 6 and 7) subjected her to dowry-related harassment and physical assault, compelling her to file proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She also alleged that the appellant who is the owner of the offending vehicle and also the maternal nephew of respondent no. 6 & 7, colluded with them to deny the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident, in order to defeat her legitimate claim for compensation.

5) The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in its appreciation of evidence. It was claimed that at the time of the accident, the appellant was in jail, and the claimant’s brother, impersonating him, had fraudulently obtained release of the vehicle. It was further alleged that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were pending on that issue.

6) The appellant also argued that respondent no. 4, Mohd.

Ahmad (driver of the offending vehicle), was not his employee and had no authority to drive the said vehicle. According to him, the claimant’s brothers, taking advantage of his absence and family ties, removed the vehicle from his farmhouse and falsely implicated it in the accident.

7) Respondent no. 4 (driver of the vehicle) admitted, however, that he was indeed driving the said Bolero on the date of the incident, but contended that the accident occurred when a Neelgai suddenly appeared on the road, and in an attempt to avoid hitting it, he collided with the motorcycle.

8) The insurer (respondent no. 5) denied liability, contending that neither the owner nor the driver had reported the accident, and also disputed the validity of the driver’s licence. He further pleaded that the accident was a case of contributory negligence.

9) The deceased’s parents (respondents no. 6 & 7) denied the involvement of the Bolero, asserting that the claimant and her brothers had falsely implicated the vehicle to extract compensation. They further relied upon a purported technical inspection report dated 09.06.2009, which allegedly showed that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. They also pleaded that on hearing news about the accident of their son, they rushed to the spot being driven i