This appeal is filed against award dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/3rd Additional District Judge (for short "MACT"), Udham Singh Nagar in MACP No.131 of 2021, Smt. Champa Pandey & another Vs. Mohd. Jahid and others, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a compensation of ₹65,09,805/- with simple interest @7% annually from the date of filing the claim petition.

2. There is delay of 47 days in filing this appeal.

3. Counsel for the applicant/appellant would submit that the delay was caused due to administrative reasons.

4. The delay condonation application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondents/ claimants, however, for the adjudication of the dispute 1 2025:UHC:866 and substantial justice the delay is condoned, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is a corporate body having sufficient means, albeit with cost of ₹5,000/- to be deposited by the appellant within one month to the High Court Legal Services Committee from today.

5. Heard on admission of appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned MACT has erred by not appreciating the fact that there is a contributory negligence of the deceased in causing of this accident as he has rammed his motorcycle from backside in the offending truck when it was being driven backward. However, he would fairly concede at Bar that when the offending vehicle was going backward on the State highway then the driver had not taken help of the cleaner or any person to see that no harm is caused to any person or vehicle or property when the vehicle was being driven by driver backward.

7. It is inexplicable that how a driver could move his vehicle backward on the State highway and that too without any assistance of any person to see that no physical harm to any person or damage to the property is caused by such rash and negligent act. Therefore, it seems that there is no contributory negligence of the 2 2025:UHC:866 deceased in causing of this accident.

8. Counsel for the appellant would further submit that respondent/claimant could not examine any witness to prove the cause of accident, however, this Court is not impressed by submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant as it is an admitted case of the appellant itself that the accident took place at a time when the offending vehicle, insured by the appellant, was moving backward on the State highway without any person assisting the driver to see that no harm is caused to any person standing behind or any vehicle coming from the back side.

9. Factum of the accident is admitted by the appellant and the manner in which the accident took place is also admitted. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court in appeal, the submission that no eye- witness was examined is not tenable, hence, this Court does not want to go into this issue whether PW1 and PW2 were really the eye-witnesses or not. Several grounds were stated in the memo of appeal but only two grounds have been pressed by the appellant, which have been dealt with above.

10. In view of the above, there is no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company, who has pressed only 3 2025:UHC:866 above two grounds and relinquished other grounds, even otherwise, this Court does not find any illegality or incorrectness in the award passed by the learned MACT.

11. Accordingly, the present appeal from order is dismissed in limine.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 11.02.2025 SS Digitally signed by SUKHBANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, SUKHBANT SINGH 2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7D72C42261361AED33172F1 52148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH Date: 2025.02.13 16:52:06 +05'30' 4