2025:UHC:7860 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 457 of 2019 4th September, 2025 The New India Assurance Company ……..Appellant Versus Smt. Rajinder Kaur and others ……… Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Tribhuwan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2/claimants. Ms. Suriya Naz, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. This Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2019 passed by learned MACT/District Judge, Nainital in MACP No.19 of 2019, Smt. Rajinder Kaur and another Vs. Km. Monika Negi and others, by which an award of Rs.5,74,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum as compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.06.2016 at about 6 p.m. when Harpreet Singh alias Happy (son of 2025:UHC:7860 2 the claimant) was going to Dakbungla Petrol Pump to fill petrol in his Scooty along with his friend Gaurav and when he reached near Kaladhungi Post Office, the driver of Swift car bearing number-UK-04U-1507 coming from the opposite direction, hit the scooty while driving the car rashly and negligently, in which both the Scooty riders got seriously injured and Harpreet @ Happy died during treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged accident occurred on 13.06.2016, while the FIR was lodged after the delay of 21 days of the accident; that, thereafter, final report was submitted by the I.O., which has been accepted by the Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the factum of accident, as the vehicle was being driven by the driver without proper documents, as such the appellant had no liability. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that as per Section 167 A of the MACT, Act only factum of accident is to be proved in this case, it is admitted that the death of the son of the claimants happened due to the said accident. 2025:UHC:7860 3 6. He would further submit that the claim petition has been filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act. In the context of Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, the learned counsel for the claimants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sunil Kumar and others reported in 2019 (12) SCC 398. The relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:- ‘8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section 163-A of the Act on the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163A(2). Though the aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the Insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the Insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. In fact, to understand Section 163A of the Act to permit the Insurer to raise the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act at par with the proceeding under Section 166 of the Act which would not 2025:UHC:7860 4 only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.’ 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order impugned in the present appeal. 8. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the learned court below is correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. (Alok Mahra, J.) 04.09.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02f e2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE 5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.04 16:50:17 +05'30'