2025:UHC:9068 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 316 of 2023 10th 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 2025:UHC:9068 2 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 2025:UHC:9068 3 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 2025:UHC:9068 4 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 the date of accident, dive have a valid and effective driving license. iii) Whether the Insurance and all R.T.O. forms of Truck NO.HR55J7230 valid on the date of accident? If yes, what effect? iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what extent and from whom? 7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence held on issue No.1 that The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing no. HR55 J 7230, resulting in the injuries and subsequent death of Jagat Singh and decided the issue no.1 in favour of the claimants. On issue no.2, learned Tribunal held that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident and decided issue no.2 in favour of 2025:UHC:9068 5 the insured/owner. On issue no.3, learned Tribunal held that the truck was duly insured, registered, and had valid permit, fitness and pollution documents on the date of the accident and decided issue no.3 in favour of the claimants. On issue no.4, learned Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned Tribunal assessed the total compensation at ₹50,99,549/-, comprising ₹34,45,650/- towards loss of dependency (calculated on a net annual income of ₹4,99,370/- with 15% future prospects and applying a multiplier of 9 after deducting one-third for personal expenses), ₹15,83,899/- towards medical expenses, ₹15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, and ₹40,000/- for loss of consortium/love and affection. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the accident was not proved to have occurred with the insured vehicle; that, the F.I.R. mentioned an unknown vehicle, hence identification of the truck was doubtful; that, the Tribunal failed to consider contributory negligence; and the future prospects ought to have been calculated 2025:UHC:9068 6 @10% instead of 15% considering that the deceased was 57 years old and self-employed. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents would submit that the Tribunal rightly relied upon the income tax return for Assessment Year 2019–20 and computed the compensation accordingly. However, he fairly conceded that the deceased was a retired Army person running a Patanjali Store, and the business may be continued after his demise. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. Upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no illegality in the Tribunal’s reliance on the Income Tax Return for determining the income of the deceased. The annual income of ₹4,99,370/- (after tax) is properly established. However, with respect to future prospects, since the deceased was a retired person aged 57 years, and his business continued after death, applying 15% addition is excessive. Following the principle laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 16 SCC 680, for self-employed persons aged between 50–60 years, 10% addition under the head of future prospects is appropriate. 2025:UHC:9068 7 11. Thus, the Tribunal’s computation under this head requires modification. On recalculation, the net annual income of the deceased comes to ₹4,99,370/-, to which 10% is added towards future prospects, making the total annual income ₹5,49,307/-. After deducting one-third (₹1,83,102/-) towards personal expenses, the annual contribution to the family is assessed at ₹3,66,205/-. Applying a multiplier of 9, the total loss of dependency amounts to ₹32,95,845/-. Adding ₹15,83,899/- towards medical expenses and ₹70,000/- under conventional heads (₹15,000/- for loss of estate, ₹40,000/- for consortium/love and affection, and ₹15,000/- for funeral expenses), the total compensation payable comes to ₹49,49,744/-. Accordingly, the total compensation is reduced from ₹50,99,549/- to ₹49,49,744/-. The rest of the findings of the Tribunal, including liability and interest, are affirmed. 12. The appeal from order is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 04.05.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent that the compensation amount stands reduced to ₹49,49,744/- with interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company 2025:UHC:9068 8 shall deposit the modified amount with accrued interest before the Tribunal within eight weeks from today. The Tribunal shall release the same to the claimants as per rules and in the same proportion as directed in the impugned award. (ALOK MAHRA, J.) 10.10.2025. Mamta