National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Thru Its ... vs Pitai Prasad And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 969 ALL

Allahabad High Court

National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Thru Its ... vs Pitai Prasad And Ors. on 14 May, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28790
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1219 of 2011
 

 
Appellant :- National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Thru Its Astt. Manager
 
Respondent :- Pitai Prasad And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.Gulati,Dharmendra Kumar Trivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Kr. Bajpai,Anil K. Tiwari,Pravin Kr. Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dharmendra Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 & 5.

2. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

3. Under challenge is the award dated 05.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Rae Bareilly in Claim Petition No. 188 of 2010 Inre; Pitai Prasad and Ors Vs. Haseb Ahmad and Ors whereby the learned tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,52,000/- along with interest to the claimant.

4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that an accident is said to have occurred on 12.04.2010 when the son of the claimants namely Mr. Amar Kumar who was walking on the road side was crushed to death by a DCM vehicle registration no. UP33 A 6885.

5. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition.

6. In the First Information Report which was lodged it was indicated that the vehicle was being driven by Sri Imran. The same was also reflected in the charge sheet. However, in the written statement which was filed by the owner Sri Hasim Ahamad who is the respondent no. 3 herein, it was indicated that the vehicle was being driven by Sri Nizamuddin who was having a valid driving license.

7. The learned tribunal framed various issues of which issue no. 2 with which the controversy pertains to, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, is as to whether on the fateful day, the driver of the vehicle in question was having a valid and effective driving license.

8. Before the learned tribunal, it was indicated that from the First Information Report and the charge sheet it emerges that it is Sri Imran who is said to be the driver of the vehicle but he was not having a valid driving license on the date of accident and as such, it is too late in the day for the owner to indicate that the vehicle was being driven by some other person, in this case Sri Nizamuddin. As the vehicle was being driven by a driver who did not have a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident consequently, no liability can be apportioned on the insurance company. It is also indicated that once in the First Information Report and in the charge sheet it emerged that Sri Imran was driver of the vehicle as such, his license should have been filed and in absence thereto, again no liability can be apportioned on the insurance company.

9. On the other hand, before the learned tribunal Sri Nizamuddin himself put in appearance after being impleaded as a party and stated that on the fateful day, he himself was driving the said vehicle and he also has an effective and valid driving license which was also valid on the date of the accident.

10. Learned tribunal after examining the statement of Sri Nizamuddin viz-a-viz the First Information Report and the charge sheet, was of the view that merely because a First Information Report has been lodged and in the charge sheet some other person has been indicated, it is the evidence which is led before the learned tribunal which would be considered and has thus held that on the fateful day, it was Sri Nizamuddin who was driving the vehicle and who had an effective and valid driving license and thus, the insurance company has been saddled with the liability of making the payment of the awarded amount.

11. Being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed.

12. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that when both in the First Information Report and the charge sheet it clearly emerged that the driver of the vehicle was not Sri Nizamuddin rather it was Sri Imran and it was indicated before the learned tribunal that it is the said driver i.e Sri Imran who should have filed his driving license and no such driving license was filed rather the owner of the vehicle before the learned tribunal indicated that the driver of the vehicle was Sri Nizamuddin consequently, the learned tribunal has patently erred in fixing the liability of making the payment of the compensation upon the insurance company and thus, on this ground alone, the impugned award as passed by the learned tribunal, so far as it directs the insurance company to pay the awarded amount, merits to be set aside. It is also contended DW-1 who was the officer of the insurance company was also produced before the learned tribunal who stated that there is no driving license of Sri Imran @ Kallu which has been filed which aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned tribunal.

13. On the other hand, Dharmendra Trivedi, Advocate has supported the order passed by the learned tribunal.

14. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records.

15. From a perusal of records it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 12.04.2010 from the DCM vehicle which resulted in the death of the son of the claimants.

16. In the First Information Report which was lodged it was indicated that the driver of the said vehicle was one Sri Imran @ Kallu. The police also filed its charge sheet against Sri Imran @ Kallu. However, on filing of the claim petition, the owner put in appearance and filed his written statement indicating that on the fateful day, the driver of the vehicle was not Imran @ Kallu rather it was Sri Nizamuddin. Sri Nizamuddin thereafter was impleaded as a party before the learned tribunal. Sri Nizamuddin put in appearance before the learned tribunal and has categorically stated that on the fateful day, he was driving the vehicle and he also has an effective and valid driving license.

17. Based upon the same, the learned tribunal has held that driver of the vehicle had a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and the vehicle was insured consequently, insurance company has been directed to pay the awarded amount.

18. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the award is that considering the First Information Report and the charge sheet it was Sri Imran who was driving the vehicle and who did not have a valid and effective driving license and thus there cannot be any occasion for the insurance company to pay the awarded amount and the learned tribunal had patently erred in this regard.

19. The judgment of the learned tribunal has been perused from which it emerges that the learned tribunal has considered the statement of the alleged driver i.e Sri Nizamuddin who has categorically stated before the learned tribunal that on the fateful day, he was driving the vehicle. Admittedly, Sri Nizamuddin was having a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. The insurance company has, however, placed reliance on the statement of Sri DW-1 to indicate that Sri Imran did not have a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident who can validly be said to be the driver and taking into consideration the fact that both in the First Information Report and the charge sheet, it is Sri Imran @ Kallu has been indicated.

20. The learned tribunal after examining the evidence as led before it and after considering the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Jai Deo Singh and Ors- 2010 AHC LKO;781 DB has held that trial in a criminal case and the proceedings of the tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are governed by different laws and and the findings recorded by the police while recording statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of filing charge sheet is not a substantive and has thus held that on the fateful day, Sri Nizamuddin was a driver of the vehicle and he was having a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident and consequently, once the vehicle was insured, the vehicle was being driven by a driver who was having a valid and effective driving license consequently, the insurance company has been held liable to pay the awarded amount.

21. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned tribunal would indicate that the entire evidence as led before it has been considered.

22. So far as another person being named in the First Information Report and the charge sheet, suffice it to say that as the matter has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Deo Singh (supra) and this Court in the case of New India Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Munish and Ors in First Appeal From Order No. 170 of 2025 decided on 24.04.2025 which judgment has also considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Chamundeshwari & Ors : (2021) 18 SCC 596 as well as the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd., vs Tara Devi : 2010 SCC OnLine All 63 and has held as under:-

"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."

18. The 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."

23. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments it thus emerges that trial in a criminal case and the proceedings of the learned tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are governed by the different laws and the findings recorded by the police while recording the statement or while filing the charge sheet is 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.

24. Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned tribunal would indicate that although on behalf of the insurance company, both in the First Information Report and in the charge sheet the name of some other driver was indicated yet the learned tribunal has categorically held that the insurance company has miserably failed to prove the First Information Report and the charge sheet. Thus, the learned tribunal has correctly proceeded on the basis of the evidence which was led it of the vehicle being driven by a person who was having a valid and effective driving license.

25. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

26. Let the learned trial Court be returned back as per procedure.

Order Date :- 14.5.2025

Pachhere/-