HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 363 of 2015

09th October, 2025

Khajan Singh and another ……….Petitioners

Versus

Virendra Singh and others ……….Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioners.

Despite service no one had put in appearance for the respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This appeal from order is preferred against the

judgment and award dated 31.03.2015, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/IVth Additional District Judge, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No.200 of 2010,

Khajan Singh and another Vs. Virendra Singh and others.

2. Briefly, the facts of the petition are that the deceased Amit Singh was returning home after completing his duty at the job when the driver of a silver- colored vehicle (Car) numbered HR-7OU-0777, identified as respondent no.1, was driving the vehicle at high speed and recklessly and struck the deceased Amit Singh, resulting in serious injuries to the body of the deceased and resulting in his death. Amit Singh died as a result of the accident, which was caused by respondent no.1 driving the vehicle in question at high speed, recklessly, and on the wrong side of the road. The deceased's monthly income was ₹10,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioners seek compensation of ₹15,00,000/- against

the opponents.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under section 166 of the MVA, claiming compensation from the

owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. It was stated that the deceased was working as an employee at a Pub bar and was earning around ₹10,000/- per month and was the sole earning member of the family.

4. The claimants have contended that the claimant has erred in its appreciation of evidence. It was further submitted by the claimants that the tribunal did not grant any opportunity to them to adduce evidence regarding the territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the onus regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal was on the defendants and no evidence was filed by the defendants. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, improper and against the weight of the evidence on record.

5. Respondent no.3 (Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.), filed a written statement, denying most of the petition's allegations due to lack of knowledge. It stated that the driver of vehicle number HR-7OU-0777 did not possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident. HR-7OU-0777 was not being driven rashly or recklessly. It is incorrect to claim that the deceased earned ₹10,000/- per month and that the petitioners were dependent on him. The driver of vehicle number HR-7OU-0777 was driving at the correct speed on the date of the accident, and any statement to the contrary is not tenable. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

6. By filing written statement on behalf of opposite parties nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the vehicle), most of the statements of the plaint have been denied and it has been stated that the reality is that respondent no.1 was driving the car at normal speed on the left side, when due to unknown reasons the deceased suddenly came in the middle of the road, due to which the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself. It is untrue to say that respondent no.1 was driving the car in question without a valid license. Respondent no.1 had a valid license to drive the car. The compensation demanded is exorbitant and respondent no.3 is not responsible for any payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are raised:-

1-Whether this accident occurred on 01-02-

2010 between 4.15 to 4.30 in the morning at MG Road, Delhi, Gurgaon, near Vipul Arora Building, Police Station DFL Qutub Enquileb, District Gurgaon, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle number HR-7 OU-0777 by opponent no. 1 and hitting Amit Singh, who was coming