HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No.207 of 2014

09th October, 2025

United India Insurance

Company Ltd. ………….Appellant

Versus

Prahlad Singh Barfal ……..Respondent

With

Appeal from Order No.208 of 2014

United India Insurance

Company Ltd. ………….Appellant

Versus

Prahlad Singh Barfal ……..Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the appellant, through video

conferencing.

Mr. Tarun Pande, Advocate for the respondent, through video

conferencing.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

These two appeals have arisen out of a

common accident and involve identical questions of fact and law. Therefore, both the appeals are being disposed

of together by this common judgment.

2. Both appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant- United India Insurance Company Ltd., assailing the awards dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional District Judge, Nainital, in two separate claim petitions arising from the same

accident. In Appeal No.207 of 2014, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹3,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, and in Appeal No.208 of 2014, it awarded ₹2,40,000/- with the same rate of interest.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.04.2008, the deceased, Smt. Pushpa, wife of the claimant Prahlad Singh Barfal, was travelling along with her relatives in a private car, Alto No. PB11 AD-8188, from Shama to Munsyari. The car was being driven by Kamal Ram, who, while driving rashly and negligently, lost control over the vehicle. The car fell from the upper road to the lower road near village Ramari, resulting in the instantaneous death of all the occupants, including Smt. Pushpa and her son Mayank. The accident was reported at Police Station Kapkot, recorded as G.D. No.18 at 13:50 hours on 25.04.2008. The deceased occupants - Pushpa was aged about 40 years, a homemaker, and her income was stated to be ₹3,000/- per month. The claimant sought compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for the untimely death of his wife. The deceased Mayank was aged about 13 years and he was a school student for which the claimant again sought a compensation of ₹5,00,000/- for the untimely death of his son.

4. The respondent/claimant contended that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver Kamal Ram, resulting in the death of his wife and son. The vehicle was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., and therefore, the insurer was liable to pay compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was further submitted that the deceased was a homemaker and her contribution to the family was significant, both economically and emotionally.

5. The Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied any liability. It was contended that the accident was not reported to the insurer as required under the Act and the policy conditions. It was also argued that the deceased did not fall within the definition of a “third party” as she was the wife of the vehicle owner and was travelling in the vehicle as an owner’s representative or beneficiary. The appellant further asserted that the policy covered only third-party risks, and therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation for the death of the owner’s wife. The claim amount, according to the insurer, was highly exaggerated and without legal basis.

AO No. 207 Of 2014:

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether on 25.04.2008, between 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., when the deceased Smt. Pushpa, wife of the petitioner Prahlad Singh Barfal, was going to her relative's house in vehicle Alto No. PB11 AD-8188 from Shama to Munsyari, the driver Kamal Ram drove the car rashly and negligently, causing it to fall off the road, resulting in her death? If so, its effect?

2. Whether the vehicle Alto No. PB11