Allahabad High Court
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. ... vs Munesh And 2 Others on 24 April, 2025
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23358
Court No. - 5
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 170 of 2025
Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Its Manager Lko.
Respondent :- Munesh And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Rai,Ashish Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Kumar,Mridula Saxena
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1999 has been filed against the judgment & order dated 21.01.2025 and award dated 31.01.2025 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sitapur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.252 of 2019 In Re Munesh & Anr vs Salman Ahmad & Anr, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% in favour of respondents No.1 & 2.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellant are that an accident occurred on 30.04.2019 at about 9:00 A.M. when the daughter of the claimants, respondents No.1 & 2 herein, was hit by a car namely Swift Dzire Reg No.UP30P 0506 which was being driven rashly and negligently. On account of said accident, she died on spot.
4. An FIR dated 30.06.2019 was lodged by the respondent No.1 against an unknown driver as emerges from perusal of the FIR (Page-34 of the appeal) and one Shri Sufiyan was arrested and was taken in custody.
5. Respondents No.1 & 2 filed a claim petition registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition No.252 of 2019 under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Tribunal at Sitapur praying for compensation on account of death of the daughter, who was said to be 8 years of age at the time of the accident.
6. The appellant-Insurance Company put in appearance and indicated that the driver of the vehicle namely Shri Sufiyan was not having a valid Driving License and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
7. In support of this averment, the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the FIR, charge-sheet as well as arrest memo which all indicated of Shri Sufiyan having been arrested to contend that the arrest made by the police and the charge-sheet which had been filed against Shri Sufiyan, all indicate about the fact that in fact driver of the vehicle was Shri Sufiyan who was not having a valid driving license which thus indicates that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
8. Learned Tribunal framed an Issue No.2 as to whether on the fateful day the accident which occurred from the aforesaid car, the driver was having a valid driving license. Learned Tribunal thereafter considered the statement of D.W.-1, who was the owner of the vehicle from which it emerged that the driver of the vehicle was one Shri Idrish and that Shri Sufiyan and certain others were sitting in the car at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal has specifically indicated that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to rebut the fact that the car was being driven by Shri Idrish who infact was having a valid driving license.
9. So far as the FIR, the charge-sheet and the arrest memo were concerned, learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Chamundeshwari & Ors : (2021) 18 SCC 596 to hold that in case there is any evidence before the learned Tribunal which runs contrary to the contents of the FIR then evidence recorded before the learned trial court has to be given weightage over the FIR.
10. Learned Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Tara Devi : 2010 SCC OnLine All 63 and National Insurance Company Limited vs Jai Deo Singh & Ors : 2010 SCC OnLine All 60 to fortify its judgment in regard to pertaining to the evidence being led before the learned Tribunal to be given more credence vis--vis the FIR and the charge-sheet submitted by the authorities.
11. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when the Insurance Company had clearly produced before the learned Tribunal copies of the FIR, charge-sheet as well as arrest memo which all indicated the fact that it was Shri Sufiyan who was the driver of the vehicle consequently the learned Tribunal has patently erred in placing reliance on the statement as had been given by the owner of the vehicle to hold that it was not Shri Sufiyan who was a driver of the vehicle rather it was Shri Idrish who was driver of the vehicle and was having a valid driving license and thus, the appellant-Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation.
12. On the other hand, Shri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that order passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly legal and valid in eyes of law and duly supported with the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it emerges that the accident is said to have occurred on 30.04.2019 from the vehicle as aforesaid which has resulted in the death of the daughter of the claimants. The dispute revolves as to whether the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving license at the time of the accident
14. As per the Insurance Company the vehicle was being driven by Shri Sufiyan and in this regard reliance has been placed on the charge-sheet and the arrest memo. In turn owner of the vehicle had indicated before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle in fact was being driven by Shri Idrish who was having a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident and Shri Sufiyan and others were siting inside the car who were going to purchase medicines.
15. Thus, the learned Tribunal was seized of theevidence that had been led by the owner of the vehicle regarding the driver of the vehicle vis--vis the charge-sheet and the arrest memo of the authorities.
16. In case the learned Tribunal is seized of the evidence, which has been led before it vis--vis evidence by way of final report etc., as to what evidence would prevail has been considered threadbare by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chamundeshwari (supra), wherein it has been held as under:-
"8. ....... If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report."
17. Likewise, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Deo Singh (supra) has held as under:-
"7. The trial in a criminal case and the proceeding of the Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act, are governed by different law and the finding recorded by the police while recording statement under section 161, Cr. P.C. or while filing charge-sheet is not a substantive evidence. It is settled law that the contents in the first information report or the statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C. are not a substantive evidence. It shall always be incumbent on the concerned party that while relying upon such statement, he or she should also prove the same like other evidence in accordance with the provisions contained in the Evidence Act. The burden was on the appellant Insurance Company to prove by cogent and trustworthy evidence that the vehicle was being driven by Kallu Bajpai. Without any corroborative evidence, the contents of the charge-sheet or the statement recorded under section 161, Cr. P.C. or the first information report may not be taken as substantive evidence. Moreover, the contents of section 161, Cr. P.C. or the charge-sheet are the statement given before the police and lacks evidentiary value unless proved in accordance to law.
...........
9. In view of above, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle was being driven by Kallu Bajpai, in absence of any corroborative evidence, seems to be not acceptable. The burden was on the appellant to prove by cogent and trustworthy evidence that the vehicle was driven by Kallu Bajpai and not by Anuj Kumar Bajpai as stated by the owner during course of trial. The Tribunal has rightly believed the evidence led by owner with regard to the driver of the vehicle and seems to not suffer from any perversity or illegality.
11. In the present case, as discussed hereinabove, the owner of the vehicle has set up a case that Anuj Kumar Bajpai was driving the vehicle. The evidence led by the owner with regard to the driver of the vehicle was rebuttable and it could have been controverted by the appellant by leading evidence to establish that the vehicle was being driven by Kallu Bajpai who was not possessing driving licence. As observed hereinabove, the sole witness of the appellant Sanjai Trivedi had not proved that the vehicle was driven by Kallu Bajpai. For the reasons, discussed hereinabove, the statement recorded by the police in the charge-sheet or in the statement under section 161, Cr. P.C. cannot be taken as a substantive evidence in absence of any corroborative evidence led by the appellant to assail the impugned award."
18. Again Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tara Devi (supra) has held as under:-
"5. It has also been argued that the police has submitted the charge-sheet in which Dinesh Prakash Dubey has been named as accused. On the other hand, the attention of the court has been invited towards the fact that the owner of the tractor pleaded that the vehicle was driven by Mohd. Rizwan. From the driving licence as well as other material on record, the Tribunal recorded a finding that it was Mohd. Rizwan who was driving the tractor and since he was holding a valid driving licence, the compensation by the insurance company cannot be denied.
...........
7. To rebut the owner's plea with regard to driving of the tractor, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the charge-sheet and the statement recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code in the criminal case registered by the police under sections 279/304-A of the Penal Code, 1860. However, the Tribunal has disbelieved the charge-sheet and also the statement recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that they were not duly proved.
............
9. Dinesh Prakash Dubey in his state ment has stated that a certificate was given to the police to the effect that he was driving the tractor in question. However, no evidence was led to establish that Dinesh Prakash Dubey was driving the vehicle in question."
19. From perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it emerges that all along this Court has indicated that where the learned Tribunal is seized with the evidence before it which is categorical vis--vis the evidence in the shape of the FIR etc., it is the evidence which is led before the learned Tribunal and which incidentally is unrebutted, as in the instant case, would prevail.
20. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025
prateek
