IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

Appeal From Order No.589 of 2023

National Insurance Company Limited ……..Appellant

Versus

Bablu @ Chandveer and others ……… Respondents

Judgment reserved on: 09.10.2025 Judgment delivered on: 15.10.2025

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

Presence:-

Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance

company.

Mr. Mangha Ram Kashyap, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

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

Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli, in MACP No. 02 of 2022, Bablu @ Chandveer and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, whereby an award of Rs.9,26,800/- along with interest @ 7% per annum

was granted as compensation in favour of the claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.07.2021, Ankit alias Ankit Kumar, employed as a tractor driver in Village Lacheda, was returning on foot to his native

village Hathi Karoda at about 6:30 a.m. When he reached near the Indian Oil Petrol Pump on the Bypass Road, he was hit by an unknown vehicle being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in his death on the spot. Thereafter, a shopkeeper near the place of occurrence informed the police, who conducted the panchnama (inquest) treating the deceased as an unidentified person, and the post-mortem was conducted at the District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. Subsequently, the respondents/claimants identified the body as that of Ankit Kumar at Police Station Shahpur and performed the last rites. The FIR was lodged on 22.07.2021 against an unknown driver and vehicle.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that initially, the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle and driver, and it was only at a highly belated stage that motorcycle No.UP- 12-AP-5992 (insured with the appellant) was introduced into the case; that, this raises serious doubts about the genuineness of the claim petition, which ought to have been dismissed at the threshold.

4. He has further submitted that the claim itself is suspicious because the deceased was a permanent resident of Karaunda, District Shamli (U.P.), the accident occurred at Shahpur, Muzaffarnagar (U.P.), but the claim petition was filed at Chamoli, Uttarakhand thus making the entire claim doubtful and jurisdictionally defective.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the panchnama did not specifically mention that the death occurred as a result of a motor vehicle accident, which is a primary requirement for awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and unsustainable.

6. He has further submitted that the alleged eyewitness (a shopkeeper) who claimed to have seen the accident did not mention the number of the motorcycle involved, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of his testimony and the genuineness of the entire claim. Additionally, it is submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 72,000/- per annum and further erred in granting 40% addition towards future prospects, which is legally untenable and deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that at the time when the panchnama and post- mortem were conducted, the identity of the deceased was unknown. However, during the course of investigation, it was established that the deceased was Ankit Kumar, the son of the claimant.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the learned MACT rightly assumed jurisdiction, as Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides that every application under sub-section (1) may, at the o