UKHC010009222012 2026:UHC:7277 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS AO/461/2012 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. --Petitioner Versus Tek Singh Jethudi --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present Appeal From Order has been filed challenging the judgment and award dated 18.06.2026 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Tehri Garhwal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased met with an accident on 16.12.2006 while riding a motorcycle and was declared dead while being taken to the hospital. A claim petition was thereafter filed before the Tribunal. It is contended that though the insurance policy provided Personal Accident insurance to owner of ₹1,00,000/- for the owner-driver, the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. It is further submitted that the accident was a hit-and-run case involving an unknown vehicle and, therefore, the claim ought not to have been entertained by the Tribunal. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the driving licence of the deceased was duly produced before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the insurance company relied upon a report allegedly obtained from the Transport UKHC010009222012 2026:UHC:7277 Department, Mathura through its surveyor, but neither the author of the report nor any official from the concerned department was examined before the Tribunal. The said report, therefore, remained unproved and could not have been relied upon for disbelieving the genuineness of the driving licence. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has considered the evidence available on record and has rightly held that the insurance company failed to prove its plea regarding the alleged fake driving licence. The report relied upon by the insurance company was not proved in accordance with law and no witness from the Transport Department was examined to substantiate the contents thereof. In the absence of any legally admissible evidence, the Tribunal was justified in discarding the said report. 6. No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been pointed out in the impugned judgment and award warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order fails and is dismissed. 8. 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 claimants as per the directions of the Tribunal. (Alok Mahra, J.) 14-08-2026 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c 12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BE D00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.08.17 16:27:45 +05'30'