1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No.165 of 2023 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited …. Appellant Versus Sh. Jugal Kishore Pant and another ……… Respondents Judgment reserved on: 19.09.2025 Judgment delivered on: 25.09.2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. I.P. Kohli and Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company. None is present for the respondent, despite sufficient service. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1988”), challenging the judgment and award dated 27.02.2023, rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No.14 of 2018, titled as “Jugal Kishore Pant Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another”. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal directed the appellant/insurance company to pay a sum of ₹1,03,090/- to the respondent no.1 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date of filing of the petition until actual realization of the awarded amount. 2 2. The brief facts, as narrated by the claimant, are that on 09.06.2018, the respondent No.1 was traveling in a Car, bearing registration No. UK-04H-7447, together with occupants of the vehicle, from Gauniaro to Haldwani; that at approximately 07:00 a.m., when the vehicle reached in the vicinity of Village Murdia Haidakhan, the driver, while operating the vehicle in a rash, negligent, and reckless manner, lost control, causing the vehicle to overturn into a ditch. As a consequence of the said accident, respondent no.1 sustained grievous injuries and was immediately transported to Krishna Hospital, Haldwani, where he was admitted to the Intensive Cardiac Care Unit (ICCU) in view of the seriousness of his condition. He received comprehensive medical treatment, including dressing of injuries and administration of intravenous therapy, and remained hospitalized until 11.06.2018. Subsequently, on 18.06.2018, respondent no.1 was admitted to Sai Hospital, Haldwani, where he underwent surgical intervention involving the insertion of an implant, and was discharged on 20.06.2018. It is further averred that respondent no.1 will, in the future, require a surgical procedure for the removal of the implant and the anticipated cost of which is approximately ₹50,000/-. It is stated that an amount of around ₹3,00,000/- has already been expended on medical treatment. It is further submitted that, prior to the accident, respondent no.1 was in sound health, free from any infirmity, and was earning a monthly remuneration of ₹15,000/- through gainful employment. By reason of the injuries sustained, he has been rendered incapacitated for work and continues to suffer from enduring pain and agony. 3 Accordingly, respondent no.1 has claimed compensation amounting to ₹10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has erred in law and on facts in adjudicating issue nos.1 & 2, which pertain to the determination of negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. He submitted that the material on record unequivocally demonstrates that the driver of the vehicle acted with due care and diligence and that no negligence is attributable to him. Learned counsel further submitted that no other vehicle was involved in the accident, which occurred solely due to circumstances beyond the control of the driver. According to the appellant, the accident took place when an animal suddenly crossed the roadway and, in an attempt to avert a collision, the driver of the vehicle swerved, causing the car to fall into a ditch. As a result of the mishap, the driver, along with three other occupants of the vehicle, tragically lost their lives, while respondent no.1 sustained injuries. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal, without assigning any cogent, substantive, or legally tenable reasons, erroneously concluded that the driver had operated the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel urged that such a finding is contrary to the facts on record and has no basis in law, warranting interference with the impugned judgment & award. 4. Upon a considered examination of the objects and underlying policy of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is manifest that the legislation constitutes a beneficial 4 enactment, intended to secure fair and expeditious compensation to victims of motor accidents. On a meticulous appraisal of the facts, circumstances, and evidence on record, this Court is of the view that it may reasonably be inferred that the respondent no.1 had a monthly income of ₹5,075/-. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the other heads, being in consonance with the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, does not warrant interference. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a careful and meticulous examination of the evidence on record, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, and the applicable legal principles, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment & award dated 27.02.2023, rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No.14 of 2018, titled as “Jugal Kishore Pant Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another”, is both well-reasoned and legally sustainable. Learned Tribunal has, after appreciating the evidence in its entirety, rightly concluded on the issue of negligence of the driver of the vehicle, and has awarded compensation to the respondent no.1 in accordance with the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in authoritative pronouncements, including “Smt. Sarla Verma & others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another”, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and “National Insurance 5 Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & others”, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 6. It is evident from the record that learned Tribunal has undertaken a thorough assessment of the circumstances leading to the accident, the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the respondent no.1, and the consequential financial loss suffered. The award granted encompasses medical expenses already incurred, future medical contingencies, loss of income, and other heads of compensation in consonance with established legal precedents. No material irregularity, perversity, or illegality has been demonstrated that would warrant interference with the Tribunal’s conclusions. 7. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned award. The findings of the Tribunal are coherent, cogent, and in conformity with law, ensuring a just and equitable relief to the claimant. 8. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The award of compensation to the respondent no.1 stands affirmed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 25.09.2025 BS BALWAN T SINGH Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf 72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4ba7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F483 46EB553DE5185F418755DC00A7A13C14A 680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH Date: 2025.09.25 13:28:03 +05'30'