The present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 24.08.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/1st Additional District Judge, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 03 of 2021, whereby compensation of ₹65,53,000/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents against the appellant

2. The case of the claimants, as pleaded in the claim petition, is that on 22.12.2020, deceased Neeraj Singh Adhikari was returning from Kaladhungi to his home at Bajunia Haldu on motorcycle no. UK04Z-0982, along with his friend Santosh Garjola. At about 5:00 p.m., near the Forest Department gate on Baur Pul, Kaladhungi-

2025:UHC:8331 Bajunia Haldu Road, a tipper vehicle no. UK04CA- 6876, being driven rashly and negligently from the wrong side, collided with the motorcycle. The deceased sustained grievous injuries, was initially admitted at Sai Hospital, Haldwani, and thereafter referred to Shri Rammurti Memorial Hospital, Bareilly, where he succumbed to injuries on 23.12.2020. An FIR of the incident was lodged at P.S. Kaladhungi on 25.12.2020. The claimants pleaded that the deceased was engaged in running a milk dairy at Haldwani, owning 7-8 jersey cows and supplying about 60 litres of milk daily, thereby earning around ₹35,000/- per month. On this basis, compensation of ₹76,32,000/- was claimed.

3. The appellant/Insurance Company filed its written statement denying liability, contending that the vehicle was not at fault, that requisite details of the accident were not furnished by the insured, and that the claimants failed to establish the alleged income of the deceased. Respondent-owner of the tipper and owner of the motorcycle also filed their written statements, placing on record the RC, permit, fitness certificate, and driving licence of the driver.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

UK04CA-6876, resulting in the death of Neeraj Singh Adhikari?

2025:UHC:8331

(ii) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle UK04X- 0982?

(iii) Whether the driver of the tipper had a valid and effective driving licence and whether the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy at the time of accident?

(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom?

5. Learned Tribunal On Issue No.1, relying on the testimony of PW-2 (eyewitness Santosh Garjola), the Tribunal held that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper. On Issue No.2, the Tribunal found that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. On Issue No.3, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company failed to produce any contrary evidence to rebut the claimants' case. As such, it was presumed that the tipper was duly insured and the driver possessed a valid licence. On Issue No.4, learned Tribunal held that on the date of accident, the tipper vehicle in question was insured with Insurance Company i.e. appellant, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is solely responsible for paying compensation to the claimants. Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at ₹30,000/-, applied a future prospects addition of 40%, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, and applied the 3 2025:UHC:8331 multiplier of 17 for the age of 27 years. Dependency was thus calculated at ₹64,26,000/-. Adding ₹15,000/- for loss of estate, ₹15,000/- for funeral expenses, and ₹44,000/- for consortium, total compensation was determined at ₹65,53,000/- with 6% simple interest.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income at ₹30,000/- p.m. without any cogent documentary proof; that, the dairy business income was not substantiated by authentic records or licences; that, deduction of only 1/4th for personal expenses was erroneous as the father of the deceased was an earning member; that, the Tribunal ignored that the dairy business allegedly continued after the death of the deceased.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the deceased was indeed supplying 70-80 litres of milk daily @ ₹35 per litre; that, receipts of supply were produced and not disputed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal; that, the dairy business closed after the death of the deceased as there was no one left to manage it; that, the question of regarding the receipt of milk dairy was not disputed before the Tribunal and is being raised for the first time in appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

2025:UHC:8331

9. It is undisputed that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident in question. PW-2, who was an eyewitness, categorically deposed that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the tipper. His testimony remained unshaken in cross- examination. Thus, the finding of negligence recorded by the Tribunal is affirmed. As regards the validity of insurance and driving licence, the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to the contrary. Once the claimants produced the insurance policy and relevant documents, the onus shifted to the insurer, which it failed to discharge. The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect also stands confirmed.

10. On the question of income, it is noted that receipts of milk supply and oral testimony of PW-1 were placed before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company did not object to such evidence or cross- examine PW-1 on the authenticity of receipts before learned Tribunal. For the first time, this objection has been raised in the present appeal. It is a settled principle of law that new grounds not raised before the Tribunal cannot be urged at the appellate stage unless they go to the root of jurisdiction. Therefore, this contention of the appellant is rejected.

11. Perusal of the impugned award would reveal that learned Tribunal has adopted the correct method of assessment by considering future prospects (as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

2025:UHC:8331 Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680), making deduction towards personal expenses, and applying the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 27 years. The compensation awarded cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no error in the findings and award passed by the learned Tribunal warranting interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. The statutory deposit of ₹25,000/- made by the appellant/Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned.

2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f24 4f3e584af1449e430ef900bf09a 6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9 RANI cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b66d d26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef 0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2025.09.22 17:09:13 +05'30' 6