Uttarakhand High Court
AO/30/2012 of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs RAM VEER SINGH on 10 August 2026
Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010016222012 AO/30/2012 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd --Appellant Versus Ram Veer Singh and Others --Respondents Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
UKHC010016222012 AO/30/2012
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd --Appellant Versus Ram Veer Singh and Others --Respondents
Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate for the appellant (through video conferencing).
2. Mr. Devendra Pant, Advocate for the respondents.
3. The present appeal from order has been filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ADJ/1st FTC, Haldwani, Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 60 of 2008, Ramveer Singh Vs. Subodh Kumar Saxena and Others.
4. The main ground of challenge taken by the Appellant/Insurance Company to the order passed by the MACT is that the claimant have only proved the medical bills of Rs. 2,30,000/- whereas he has been awarded compensation of bills amounting to Rs. 2,80,000/-. The other ground of challenge is that the claimant was hospitalized on 13.11.2007 and remained there till 07.01.2008 whereas the date of the accident was 14.11.2007. As such, the entire medical bills and admit receipts were forged.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submits that all the medical bills were proved by the claimant and were counter-signed and verified by a duly constituted Medical Board. As regards the date of admission of the claimant in the hospital on 13.11.2007, learned counsel submits that the date was wrongly entered by the Registration Clerk of the hospital at Bareilly inasmuch as the accident happened at about 02:30 A.M. on 14.11.2007 and this fact is corroborated by the report filed by the complainant and also from the statement of PW4, who was an employee of the Eshan Hospital, Bareilly, where the claimant was admitted and he on the basis of the medical report of the patient has submitted that the claimant was admitted at Eshan Hospital on 14.11.2007. Furthermore, this issue has been dealt by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in detail.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. As such, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, it is apparently clear that the date of admission of the claimant in the hospital mentioned in the discharge certificate as 13.11.2007 was a clerical error, as it was clarified by PW4 when he produced the original registration record of the hospital and had given a statement on the basis of the record of the claimant that he was admitted in Eshan Hospital, Bareilly on 14.11.2007.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and award dated 11.11.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ADJ/1st FTC, Haldwani,
Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 60 of 2008, Ramveer Singh Vs. Subodh Kumar Saxena and Others, and, as such, no new ground has been raised in the appeal, therefore, the present appeal from order is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Further, the statutory amount deposited in the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for payment to the appellant/Insurance Company.
(Alok Mahra J.)
10.08.2026 Ujjwal