2025:UHC:10408 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.155 of 2023 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. 2. Mr. Tarun Pande, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. This Appeal from Order has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 12.12.2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital passed in M.A.C.P. No.91 of 2021. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 11.03.2021, the son of respondent no. 1, while returning home from Dhikuli, Ramnagar on his motorcycle bearing registration no. UK07-BF-5848, was driving cautiously on the correct side of the road. At approximately 04:30 p.m., upon reaching near Shiva Temple, Chaklua, a bus bearing registration no. UK02-PA- 0025, coming from Haldwani, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly swerved to the wrong side of the road and violently collided with the motorcycle. The son of respondent no. 1 sustained grievous injuries and was immediately rushed to Sushila Tiwari Hospital, where he was declared dead upon arrival. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant 2025:UHC:10408 contends that the learned Tribunal committed a manifest error in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at ₹20,000/-. It is argued that the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company, after due inquiry, ascertained the income of the deceased to be ₹8,000/- per month only. It is further contended that the accident being a case of head-on collision, the insurer of the other offending vehicle has not been impleaded as a necessary party, thereby rendering the findings of the Tribunal unsustainable in law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. It is submitted that the Manager of the Resort, where the deceased was gainfully employed, was examined before the learned Tribunal and has categorically deposed, supported by documentary evidence, that the deceased was drawing a salary of ₹20,000/- per month. It is further emphasized that the deceased, being a graduate in B.B.A. and holding a professional degree in Hotel Management, was rightly assessed at such income, and the testimony of the Manager cannot be disbelieved merely on conjecture. The plea of non-joinder of the insurer of the alleged other vehicle is an afterthought, as no such plea was raised either before the learned Tribunal or in the written statement. 7. A Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, has laid down clear guidelines 2025:UHC:10408 for determining compensation in motor accident claims. This Court finds that the compensation awarded to the claimants is just, reasonable, and in consonance with the settled parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The award passed by the learned Tribunal neither suffers from any perversity nor warrants interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order fails and is dismissed. 9. The statutory amount, if deposited by the appellant at the time of filing the appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned for adjustment towards the award amount. The balance amount, if any, shall be released in favour of the claimant as per the directions of the Tribunal. (Alok Mahra, J.) 21.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20dd db7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98 7446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.11.21 13:57:07 +05'30'