Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

A.O. No.50 of 2024

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the

appellant.

Mr. Shankar Aggarwal and Mr. Ashish

Aggarwal, Advocates for the claimant/

respondent no.1.

2. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 21.09.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar passed in M.A.C.P. No.297 of

2019.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged accident occurred on 15.10.2015, whereas the claim petition was instituted only after a considerable delay of four years, namely on 01.11.2019; that no First Information Report in respect of the said accident was lodged, nor was the insured vehicle seized by the Police for investigation; and that the monthly income of the claimant, assessed at ₹12,000/- by the learned Tribunal, has been determined on an exaggerated basis. It is submitted that such an overestimation of income directly affects the computation of compensation, thereby causing an undue burden on the insurer. Learned counsel contends that, in light of these factors, the Tribunal’s award warrants careful re-

examination and interference by this Court.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 submits that no period of limitation is prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the delay in filing the Claim Petition was

occasioned by the severe injuries sustained by the respondent no. 1, who was fully engaged in his medical treatment; accordingly, the Claim Petition was filed after a lapse of four years. With regard to the non-filing of an F.I.R., it is submitted that respondent no. 1 was admitted to Susheela Tiwari Government Hospital, Haldwani, where a Medico-Legal Case report was forwarded to the Police by the Hospital authorities, and his father remained in attendance to care for him during his hospitalization. Thereafter, when respondent no. 1 approached the Police Station to lodge a formal complaint, the Police declined to register the F.I.R., contending that a considerable period had elapsed since the occurrence of the accident. Learned counsel further submits that the income of respondent no. 1 was duly established through the testimony of Vikram Singh Negi, who deposed that respondent no. 1 was employed as a Supervisor on his farm and earned a monthly remuneration of ₹12,000/-. It is contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, equitable, and in strict conformity with law, and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

5. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and a meticulous perusal of the record, this Court is satisfied that the learned Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion in awarding compensation. The delay in presenting the Claim Petition is adequately explained by the grievous injuries sustained by respondent no. 1 and his preoccupation with medical treatment and also the circumstances which are recognized under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Moreover, the evidence adduced regarding the income of respondent no. 1, particularly the testimony of Vikram Singh Negi, remains ARPAN D D i N g : i t c a = l I y N s , i o g = n H e I d G b H y C A O R U P R A T N O JA F I U SW TT A A L R AKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485

365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, JAISWAL p se o r s ia ta lN lC u o m d b e= er 2 = 6 0 3 6 0 0 0 F 1 C , 1 st 7 = 0 U 2 T 2 T B A EA RA E3 K D H E A 2 N 1 D 5 , D 68D9D

454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA6

6, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.10.14 17:44:02 +05'30'