Commissioner of Income tax-II, vs. M/s. Essen Suppelements India Ltd.,

2025:UHC:9988 3 Lombard (insurer of the truck no.UK 07 CA/0699) and respondent no. 10 (Truck Driver) jointly and severally. 5.

All the appeals arise out of the same fatal road accident that occurred in the intervening night of 28/29 June 2008 at about 2:00 a.m., near Koyalghati, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, involving a Santro car No. UA 07 C/3866 and a truck No. UK 07 CA/0699. On the night of 28/29 June 2008, at around 2:00 a.m., deceased No. 1, Naresh Kumar Arora, was travelling in a Santro car No. UA 07 C/3866 along with his family members and driver Arun Prasad.The car was going from Dehradun to Rishikesh. Deceased Naresh Kumar Arora was sitting in the front passenger seat, his wife Indra Arora and son Madhav @ Manav were seated with other relatives, and Ms. Preeti and Ms. Ruchika (the petitioners) were seated in the back seat. 6.

When the car reached near the vegetable market at Koyalghati, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, an animal suddenly came onto the road. While attempting to avoid hitting the animal, the car collided with a truck No. UK 07 CA/0699, which was parked on the road without any parking lights. As a result of the collision, Naresh Kumar Arora, Indra Arora, and Madhav @ Manav died on the spot and driver Arun Prasad, Mrs. Madhu Arun Prasad, Ms. Preeti, and Ms. Ruchika sustained serious injuries. After initial treatment at Government Hospital, Rishikesh, the injured were referred to Himalayan Hospital, Jolly Grant, Dehradun. Due to the serious condition of some injured, they were further referred to Max Healthcare Hospital, Saket, Delhi, and Vardhman Trauma and Infertility Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar. The FIR regarding the accident was lodged by Mr. S.P. Kakkar at

2025:UHC:9988 4 Rishikesh Police Station on 30.06.2008. The claimants alleged expenditure of Rs.10,00,000 on the treatment of petitioner No. 1 (Priti), Rs. 1,00,000 on the treatment of petitioner No. 2 (Ruchika) and continued medical expenses thereafter. 7.

Hence, the present order deals with three sets of claim petitions- one by Ms. Priti and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others for compensation on account of deaths of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mrs Indu Arora and Madhav @ Manav ; and other petitions being United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Ms. Priti and another for fulfillment of compensation on account of deaths of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mrs. Indu Arora and Madhav @manav and serious injuries sustained by Mr. Arun Prasad, Mrs. Madhu Arun Prasad, Ms. Priti and Ms. Ruchika. 8.

The claimants contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver/owner of the truck No. UK 07 CA/0699, who had parked the vehicle on the road without parking lights on. They claimed that the truck’s negligent parking in the dark was the proximate cause of the accident leading to the deaths and serious injuries. The claimants sought Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation, along with 12% annual interest from the date of petition till payment. 9.

Respondent No. 1(truck owner) denied liability, asserting that the truck was parked properly on the left side of the unpaved portion of the road with its parking lights on. It was further stated that the truck had a valid insurance policy with ICICI Lombard and all documents, including the driver’s license and permits, were valid. If any liability arose, it was contended that it lay with the insurer.

2025:UHC:9988 5 10. Respondent/Opposite party no.2 (ICICI Lombard, insurer of truck no. UK 07 ca/0699) denied all allegations, arguing that the truck driver did not have a valid driving license, and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Santro car. It was further claimed that the petition was not maintainable against the insurer. 11. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6, Legal Representatives of Vehicle Owner (Car UA 07 C/3866) admitted most of the facts, stating that the car was owned by late Manohar Lal, who had since passed away. It was used by Naresh Arora, and was insured with United India Insurance Company. They also affirmed that Arun Prasad had a valid driving licence and that the insurance company was liable to pay compensation. 12. Respondent No. 7, Driver Arun Prasad He admitted that he was driving the car at the time of the accident and sustained serious injuries. He denied rashness or negligence, asserting that the collision occurred due to the negligently parked truck. 13. The appellant, United India Insurance Company (Insurer of Car) denied the accident, the age of the petitioners, and the deaths of the parents. It was further contended that Naresh Arora, not Arun Prasad, was driving the car with only a learner’s licence and that the vehicle was insured in the name of deceased Manohar Lal (who had died in 2005). Thus, the insurance contract was claimed to be void and unenforceable. 14. The appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. also submitted that seven persons were travelling in the Santro car, which was against the

2025:UHC:9988 6 seating capacity of 5 persons. The appellant also submitted that since the Tribunal itself held that the alleged accident was caused due to the negligence of truck driver and there was no proof of rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of Santro car, therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law by fixing the liability jointly and severally and that the Tribunal should have fixed the liability separately between the appellant/insurance company, respondent no. 4 (ICICI Lombard) and the respondent no. 10 (truck driver). 15. For Respondent No. 10 (truck driver) no written statement was filed. Proceedings were ordered ex parte against him on 03.05.2011. 16. Based on the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal famed the following issues for adjudication and since both the claim petitions arise out of the same accident, the issues framed by the Tribunal are also same for both the petitions and has been decided accordingly by the Tribunal. (i) Whether the alleged accident took place on 28/29.06.2008 at about 2 o'clock in the night at Koyalghati, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, when car no. UA 07 C/3866 suddenly collided with truck no. UK 07 CA/0699 due to an animal coming in front of it, which was negligently parked on the road in the dark, due to which the petitioners Ms. Preeti and Ruchika sitting in the car suffered serious injuries and also resulted in the death of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora, Mrs. Indu Arora and Madhav @ Manav died? (ii) Whether the driver of truck no. UK07 CA/0699 had a valid driving licence on the date of the accident?

2025:UHC:9988 7 (iii) Whether truck no. UK 0.07 CA/0699 was being driven without a valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident? If so, what were the implications? (iv) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car no. UA.07C/3866 on the date of accident, as stated in paragraph 6 of the counterclaim of opposite party No. 2? (v) Whether the accident was tainted by the mishandling of Opponent No. 2? If so, what is its effect? (vi) Whether late Shri Naresh Arora was driving the car on the date, time and place of the accident, as stated in paragraph 14 of the counter-claim of opposite party No. 8 (vii) Whether Shri Arun Prasad was driving the car no. UA 07C/3866 on the date, time and place of the accident? (viii) Whether late Naresh Arora did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident? (ix) Whether the insurance contract of Car No. UA.07C/3866 was illegal, void and ineffective on the date of accident? (x) Whether the petitioners entitled to any compensation amount? If yes, then how much and from which party? (xi) Whether this suit is maintainable under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if yes, what is its effect?

2025:UHC:9988 8 17. On issue no. 1 regarding the cause of accident, based on witness testimonies and FIR records, the Tribunal concluded that: (i) The truck was negligently parked on the road in the dark, without parking lights. (ii) The Centro car collided with it while attempting to avoid an animal. (iii) The accident caused the deaths and injuries described. (iv) The Tribunal relied on precedents such as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambabu Singh & Ors. (2010 Gauhati 795) and Smt. Pushpa v. Rai Singh (2007 (4) MPHT 277), holding that the truck driver’s negligence was the cause of the accident. Issue was decided in favor of the petitioners. 18. On issue nos. 2 and 3 regarding valid licence, permit, and fitness of truck, the Tribunal was of the view that evidence established that the truck driver had a valid driving licence, and the vehicle possessed valid permit and fitness certificates. These issues were decided in favor of the respondents. 19. On issue No. 4 regarding rash and negligent driving by car driver the Tribunal found no evidence to show that the car driver (Arun Prasad) drove rashly or negligently. Witness PW1 (Preeti) stated that the car speed was about 40 km/h, and the accident was due to the parked truck. Issue decided against the opponents. 20. On issue no. 5, whether the accident tainted by the mis-joinder of opposite party no. 2, the Tribunal emphasized that it appeared that opposite party no. 2, ICICI Lombard, which insured truck no. UK.07 CA/0699,

2025:UHC:9988 9 stated in its written statement that it was wrongly named in the case, even though it bore no liability. The petitioners were not traveling in the vehicle rather they were traveling in the car, which hit the truck. Therefore, it had been wrongly named in the suit. It was certainly admitted that the above issue was based on the averments made in opposite party No. 2's written statement and no evidence had been presented by it to this effect. Therefore, it could not be assumed that the accident was not caused by Opposite Party No. 2's truck. The issue was accordingly disposed of. 21. On issues Nos. 6, 7 & 8 with respect to driver of the car and validity of licence, the Tribunal was of the view that After examining evidence and witness testimonies: (i) PW1 and PW2 confirmed that Arun Prasad was driving the car. (ii) The claim of the insurer that Naresh Arora was driving was unsubstantiated. (iii) Arun Prasad held a valid driving licence. Hence, issues 6, 7, and 8 were decided in favor of the petitioners. 22. On issue No. 9 regarding validity of insurance contract, although the car was insured in the name of deceased Manohar Lal, the Tribunal held that the policy was valid and in force from 26.12.2007 to 25.12.2008. The insurer had accepted premiums and issued policy documents; thus, it remained liable. The Tribunal referred to Darshan Lal v. New India Insurance Co. (2004 (4) SC 164) but distinguished it, holding the insurance company liable. Issue was decided against the insurer.

2025:UHC:9988 10 23. On issue No. 10 with respect to A.O. No. 58 of 2013, United India Insurance Co. Ltd and others vs. Priti and another, regarding entitlement and quantum of compensation arising out of the injuries sustained by Mr. Arun Prasad, Mrs. Madhu Arun Prasad, Ms. Priti and Ms. Ruchika, the Tribunal held that based on the available documentary and oral evidence, the total proven medical expenses were calculated to be Rs. 7,45,404/-. This amount included Rs.83,295 towards bills and prescriptions, Rs.6,42,109 for treatment at Max Hospital (Delhi) for Preeti, and Rs.20,000 towards miscellaneous expenses such as diet, conveyance, and other related costs. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,45,404/- with 8% simple interest per annum from the date of filing till realization. Given that the petitioners were minors, the amount was directed to be shared equally between them. 24. Furthermore on issue no. 10 with respect to A.O. No. 573 of 2012 and A.O. No. 56 0f 2013, Ms. Priti and another vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and another- regarding entitlement and quantum of compensation on account of deaths of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora and Mrs Indu Arora the learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, recorded the following findings - It was established that due to the accident in question, the petitioners’ father Naresh Arora, mother Indu Arora, and brother Madhav @ Manav lost their lives, while the petitioners themselves sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the petitioners were entitled to claim compensation on account of the deaths of their parents and brother. With respect to the deceased Naresh Kumar Arora, the Tribunal found that he was self-employed and carried on

2025:UHC:9988 11 business under the name M/s Sawan Enterprises (LG Products). The age of the deceased Naresh Arora was proved from the post-mortem report as 45 years. The Tribunal accordingly took his annual income as Rs.1,56,745/-. 25. Following the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others, (2012) 6 SCC 421, a 30% increase towards future prospects was added, as the deceased was self-employed. Thirty percent of Rs.1,56,745/- amounts to Rs.47,023/-, making the total income Rs.2,03,768/-. After deducting one-third (Rs.67,922/-) towards personal expenses, the annual contribution to the family was computed as Rs.1,35,846/-. 26. Relying upon the multiplier of 14, applicable to the age group of 45 years as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the total loss of dependency was calculated as Rs.1,35,846 x 14 = Rs.19,01,844/-. 27. The Tribunal further awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection on account of the death of Smt. Indu Arora; and Rs. 50,000/- towards the death of the petitioners’ brother, Manav. Accordingly, the total compensation was determined as Rs. 20,61,844/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Sixty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Four only), which was found to be just and fair. 28. On issue no. 11 regarding maintainability under Section 166 MV Act the Tribunal noted that the petition was initially filed under Section 163A, later amended to Section 166 citing Surendra Kumar Arora

2025:UHC:9988 12 & Ors. v. Manoj & Ors. (2012 (3) TAC 353 SC), the Tribunal held that under Section 166, the burden to prove negligence lies on the claimant. The petition was therefore maintainable, with the burden of proving negligence on the petitioners. 29. Having heard the submissions of all the parties and perusal of material on record and further examining records of the learned Tribunal and considered the submissions advanced in both appeals, this Court finds that the award dated 15.10.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ First Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, Dehradun, is based upon a correct appreciation of evidence and a sound application of law. With regard to the appeal filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd., it is evident that the learned Tribunal has carefully analyzed the oral and documentary evidence and rightly held that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of truck No.UK-07-CA/0699 without proper indication or lighting on the roadway during night hours. The findings on the issues of negligence, validity of insurance policies, and liability of the insurer are supported by cogent materials. 30. The argument advanced by the insurer regarding the invalidity of the policy or lack of a valid driving licence has not been substantiated by any admissible evidence. The Tribunal has correctly recorded that Arun Prasad was driving the Santro car at the relevant time and that he possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The insurance policy covering the Santro car, though issued in the name of the deceased Manohar Lal, remained valid and subsisting on the date of the accident, as the insurer had accepted the premium and issued the policy for the relevant period. The conclusions

2025:UHC:9988 13 of the learned Tribunal are reasoned, consistent, and based on established legal principles. No illegality, perversity, or material irregularity is found that would warrant interference in appeal. 31. As regards A.O. No. 56 of 2013 with respect to the quantum of compensation on account of death of Mr. Naresh Kumar Arora (father of the appellants/claimants), Mrs Indu Arora (mother of appellants/claimants), the learned Tribunal has correctly computed the compensation at Rs.20,61,844/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Sixty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Four only), along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. The Tribunal has determined the income of deceased Naresh Kumar Arora on the basis of his income tax returns and applied the appropriate multiplier considering his age. It has made the statutory deduction towards personal expenses and added future prospects in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC 421. Reasonable amounts have also been awarded towards loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and other conventional heads. This Court finds that the computation of compensation is just, fair, and in conformity with the settled principles of law. The total amount awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, requires no interference and stands affirmed. 32. Insofar in A.O. No. 573 of 2012, as the appeal filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has already

2025:UHC:9988 14 taken into account all relevant and material factors, including the income, dependency, and future prospects of the deceased. The compensation has been awarded on the basis of documentary proof and established legal principles, leaving no scope for further enhancement. Moreover, the record reveals that the accident occurred when the Santro car, driven by Arun Prasad, collided with a stationary truck after attempting to avoid an animal on the road. The evidence indicates that the driver of the car lost control in the process. This circumstance clearly points to an element of contributory negligence on the part of the car driver, who was also bound to exercise reasonable care and caution while driving at night. The learned Tribunal has appropriately considered this aspect while fixing liability and computing the compensation. 33. In such circumstances, the claimant cannot seek enhancement without first discharging the burden of proving exclusive negligence on the part of the opposite party, which she has failed to do. The compensation already awarded thus represents a fair and balanced determination consistent with the evidence on record. 34. As regards A.O. No. 58 of 2013, wherein United India Insurance Company Ltd. assails the award of ₹7,45,404/- towards the injuries sustained by Arun Prasad, Mrs. Madhu Arun Prasad, Ms. Preeti, and Ms. Ruchika, this Court finds that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation strictly on the basis of duly proved medical bills, treatment records from multiple hospitals, and other supporting documents. The Tribunal has taken a conservative view while computing the medical expenses and other incidental heads, and the total amount awarded is neither excessive nor unjustified. No

2025:UHC:9988 15 ground for interference is made out. 35. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with either the findings or the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. All the appeals, therefore, lack merit and the same are dismissed. 36. The statutory amount(s) deposited before this Court or remitted to learned claim Tribunal, if any, be released in favour of the respondents-claimants immediately along with interest accrued thereon, if not already released. Amount of compensation deposited by the Insurance Company be released in favour of the respondents/claimants forthwith alongwith interest accrued thereon, if not already released, after adjusting the payment if any made in favour of the respondents/claimants. Remaining compensation amount under judgment and awards shall be deposited by the appellant i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. within three month before MACT concerned alongwith entire interest as directed by the learned Tribunal. 37. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.11.2025 AK