HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No. 316 of 2023

10^th October, 2025

SBI General Insurance Company Limited …….Appellant

Versus

Smt Meena Bisht and Others …………Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to

3.

Mr. Pramod Bailwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.6.

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

Hon’ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

The present Appeal from Order under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in M.A.C.P. No.155 of 2020, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of ₹50,99,549/- as compensation along with interest in favour of the claimants and against the appellant/Insurance

Company.

2. Brief fact of the case, as per record, are that

on 10.05.2020, deceased Jagat Singh was proceeding towards a petrol pump on his motorcycle bearing registration no. UK06 AR 9706 to fill petrol. When he reached near Ahura Petrol Pump at about 11:30 A.M., a truck bearing registration no. HR55 J 7230, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, came from behind and hit his motorcycle. As a result, Jagat Singh sustained serious injuries and was initially taken to the Government Hospital, Khatima, and subsequently referred to higher centres. He was admitted to Ishan Hospital, Bareilly till 13.06.2020, and thereafter at Rammurti Hospital, Bareilly from 14.06.2020, where he succumbed to his injuries on 07.07.2020 during treatment. An F.I.R. was lodged on 13.05.2020 under Sections 279, 338, 427 and 304-A I.P.C.. The deceased was a retired Army personnel, drawing a pension of ₹25,000/- per month, and also running a Patanjali Store, with an annual income of approximately ₹5,00,000/-. On this basis, a total compensation of ₹50,50,000/- was claimed by the dependents.

3. The owner (respondent no.4) and driver (respondent no.5) of the offending truck filed separate written statements denying negligence and asserting that the accident occurred due to the deceased’s sudden application of brakes in the middle of the road. They further stated that all vehicle documents and the driver’s license were valid and effective on the date of the accident and, therefore, the liability, if any, was to be indemnified by the Insurance Company.

4. The appellant/Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied its liability, contending that the claim petition was defective as it was not properly verified; that, the accident did not occur with the alleged truck, as the F.I.R. initially referred to an unknown vehicle; and the incident involved contributory negligence on the part of the deceased motorcyclist.

5. The claimants produced several documents including the F.I.R., postmortem report, death certificate, medical bills, discharge summaries, registration and insurance papers, and income tax return for A.Y. 2019–2020 showing income of ₹5,12,188/-. In the oral evidence, PW1 to PW7 were examined, which included eyewitnesses and medical witnesses. In defence, the Insurance Company examined its investigator, who stated that the accident happened due to a collision caused by contributory negligence.

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

i) Whether on 10.05.2020 at about 11.30 A.M., Jagat Singh was going to fill petrol in his motorcycle number UK06AR9706, when he reached near Ahara Petrol Pump, the driver of truck number HR55J7230, driving the truck rashly and negligently, hit his motorcycle from behind, due to which he got seriously injured, as a result of which Jagat Singh died on 07.07.2020 during treatment? If yes, what was the impact.

ii) Whether the driver of the Truck No.HR55J7230 on th