Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Order Date: 11.09.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Smt. Poonam Devi and others (legal representatives of the deceased); Respondents – The New India Assurance Company and Makan Singh (driver).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Appeal against Order No.208 of 2013, specifically the judgment and award dated 18.05.2012 of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/District & Sessions Judge, Tehri‑Garhwal (MACP No.11 of 2011).
  • Background: On 17.01.2008 at about 08:00 PM, near Village Padagali, District Tehri‑Garhwal, a Tata Spacio (registration No. UA‑7M‑5553) met with an accident, resulting in the death of Laxman Singh, who was the owner and a passenger in the vehicle. The vehicle was being driven by Makan Singh. The claimants (wife, mother, and three minor children) filed a petition seeking compensation of ₹11,25,000.
  • Tribunal Findings:

1. Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Makan Singh – held in favour of claimants.

2. No breach of insurance policy terms – registration, permits, fitness certificate, and licence were on record.

3. Dismissal of claim on the ground that the deceased was the vehicle owner and not a third‑party, relying on Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2004) 8 SCC 553.

  • High Court Reasoning:
  • Recognised that the policy in question was a "Passengers Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy B Package" for the Tata Spacio (seating capacity nine) with a specific premium of ₹2,115 for "Liability to Passenger(s) 9" and separate workmen‑compensation cover.
  • Noted that the deceased was a passenger/occupant, not the driver, and the policy expressly covered liability towards passengers.
  • Distinguished the Dhanraj precedent because that case lacked an express passenger‑cover provision for the owner’s death.
  • Cited Supreme Court decisions National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Thungala Dhana Laxmi (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1486) and the IRDA circular dated 16.11.2009, confirming insurer liability to any occupant under a comprehensive/package policy.
  • Concluded that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim solely on the basis of ownership.

Final Outcome

  • The appeal is allowed; the 18.05.2012 judgment and award are set aside.
  • Compensation awarded:
  • Loss of Dependency: Monthly income assessed at ₹3,000 (annual ₹36,000). Adding 40% for future prospects yields ₹14,400; total annual after addition ₹50,400. After deducting one‑fourth for personal/living expenses (₹37,800) and applying a multiplier of 16 (age 33), loss of dependency = ₹6,04,800.
  • Consortium: ₹40,000 each to five dependants (wife, mother, three children) = ₹2,00,000.
  • Loss of Estate: ₹15,000.
  • Funeral Expenses: ₹15,000.
  • Total Compensation: ₹8,34,800.
  • Interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.
  • The New India Assurance Company must deposit the total amount within eight weeks from the date of this order.
  • The learned Claims Tribunal shall release the deposited amount to the appellants/claimants forthwith.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Insurance Law