National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Ganga Prasad And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12444 ALL

Allahabad High Court

National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Ganga Prasad And 3 Others on 13 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201460
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2503 of 2025   
 
   National Insurance Company Limited    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Smt. Ganga Prasad And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Shrey Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Anjani Kumar   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 38
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.     

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by insurer of the offending Truck No.UP-64-AT-2481 against the impugned judgment and award dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonbhadra in M.A.C.P. No.70 of 2018 (Ganga Prasad and another vs. Anurag Rai and others), whereby for the untimely death of Arvind Kumar, in a motor accident that occurred on 02.02.2018, a compensation of Rs.9,91,200/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to claimants(parents), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending Truck No.UP-64-AT-2481.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that in the criminal case registered regarding the accident, after investigation, a final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer on the ground that no such accident occurred and the deceased was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, which collided with an electric pole. Learned counsel submitted that in the criminal case, the accident has not been proved but as an after thought, the claimants have filed the claim petition by mentioning that the deceased was standing by the road side when it was hit by the offending truck, which is totally contrary to the recitals of the final report. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has erred by ignoring the final report. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim petition should have been dismissed.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents submitted that the claim petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced before the Tribunal. The claimants duly proved that at the time of the accident, the deceased was standing by the road side, who was hit by the offending truck, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as such, even if a final report has been submitted in the criminal case, it is not fatal to the claimants' case. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be dismissed at the admission stage.

4. I have heard learned counsel of the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed with the appeal.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi & Another (2023) 13 SCC 510, held as under:-

11. Insofar as the claim petition filed by the appellant herein is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim petitions filed by the appellant herein or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as the case may be, in causing the accident. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits. It is needless to observe that if the proof of negligence on the part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not established then, in that event, the claim petition will be disposed of accordingly.

12. In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [(1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [ (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101], it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] .

13. In that view of the matter, it is for the appellant herein to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry in the petition filed by him seeking compensation on account of death of his son in the said accident. Thus, the opinion in the final report would not have a bearing on the claim petition for the aforesaid reasons. This is because the appellant herein is seeking compensation for the death of his son in the accident which occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry, causing the accident on the said date. It is further observed that in the claim petitions filed by the dependents, in respect of the other passengers in the car who died in the accident, they have to similarly establish the negligence in accordance with law.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Janabai WD/O Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. ICICI Lambord Insurance Co.Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 512, held as under:-

11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.

(emphasis supplied)

7. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari & Ors.(2021) 18 SCC 596 held as under:-

8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. 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.

(emphasis supplied)

8. In this case, the F.I.R. regarding the accident was registered on 21.07.2018 at 10:30 hours as Case Crime No. 108 of 2018 at Police Station Ghorawal, District Sonbhadra, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the I.P.C. It discloses that the first informant?s son, Arvind Kumar, was driving motorcycle No. UP-63-U-1380 and was returning to his home in Piparwar on 02.02.2018. At about 8:00 p.m., while he had stopped by the roadside in village Dhurkari, near the house of Shyam Lal Yadav, to attend the call of nature, he was hit by the offending truck No. UP-64-AT-2481, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. The F.I.R. further states that the accident was immediately reported to the police, who assured the claimants that the report would be registered after the last rites of the deceased. However, when the F.I.R. was not registered, the claimants were compelled to approach the competent criminal court by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was allowed, and consequently, the F.I.R. was registered. After investigation, a final report was submitted by the police stating that, at the time of the accident, it was dark, and the deceased?s motorcycle had collided with an electric pole, resulting in his death on the way to the hospital.

9. It is well settled that even if a final report is submitted in the criminal case registered regarding the accident even then, it is not fatal to the claimants' case and the Tribunal has to decide the claim petition, on the basis of evidence available before it. It is well settled that the Tribunal is not bound by the evidence adduced in the criminal case.

10. The claimants have examined PW-1 Ganga Prasad and PW-2 Anuj Kumar in support of the claim.

11. PW-1 Ganga Prasad has very fairly accepted that he was not an eye witness of the accident and at the time of the accident, he was at his house.

12. PW-2 Anuj Kumar has deposed that on 02.02.2018, Arvind Kumar (deceased) was driving motorcycle No. UP-63-U-1380 from Kalwari to his house in Ghorawal, then in village Dhurkari near the house of Shyam Lal, Arvind Kumar stopped his motorcycle and was urinating then he was hit by a truck No.UP-64-AT-2481 from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, Arvind Kumar sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. He deposed that he saw the accident and also knew the deceased from childhood.

13. It is apparent that the owner and driver of the offending truck have not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. Even the insurer of the truck has not adduced any independent evidence to prove that some other vehicle was involved in the accident. To the contrary from the evidence of PW-2 Anuj Kumar, it is proved that the accident was indeed caused by the offending truck when the deceased was standing by the roadside, attending the call of nature. .

14. In view of the above evidence on record, the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in concluding that the accident was caused by the offending truck No.UP-64-AT-2481 and on that ground fastening the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company.

15. No other issue was pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.

16. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, as such, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

17. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

18. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

(Sandeep Jain,J.)

November 13, 2025

Jitendra