Allahabad High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Smt. Mamta And 3 Others on 14 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:202668
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2608 of 2025
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Mamta And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Pawan Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ravi Sahu
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 the insurer of the offending Motorcycle No. UP-78-CD-4107 against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat in MACP No. 275 of 2020, Smt. Mamta and another vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others, whereby, for the untimely death of Bachchi Lal in motor accident that occurred on 16.11.2018, compensation of Rs.8,64,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(wife and daughter), which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending motorcycle No. UP-78-CD-4107.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the accident was doubtful because the FIR discloses that the accident was caused by Motorcycle No.UP-78-DW-5812, but the claim petition alleges that it was caused by motorcycle having Registration No.UP-78-CD-4107.
3. It was further submitted that PW-2 and PW-3 are not an eye witness of the accident, but the Tribunal has recorded a perverse finding that PW-2 was an eye witness. It was further submitted that PW-3 was also not an eye witness of the accident because he reached the spot of accident after about 10 minutes. It was submitted that the claimants have failed to prove factum of the accident, as such, the Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition, but it has held otherwise.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has submitted that the offending motorcycle was apprehended at the spot. The first informant was not an eye witness; therefore, the correct number of the offending motorcycle was not mentioned in the FIR. During investigation, it was found that the accident was caused by Motorcycle No. UP-78-CD-4107, and a charge sheet has been submitted against its driver before the criminal court. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be dismissed at the admission stage.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and the documents submitted with the appeal.
6. The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajani Sahoo and Others (2025) 2 SCC 599, has held as under:-
"8. As regards the reliability of charge-sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 819 : 2018 INSC 311] , held in para 27, thus : (SCC p. 672)
?27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 and 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the tribunal.?
9. It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with the accident in question. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving. The High Court took note of such aspects and found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and consequently dismissed the appeal.
10. In the contextual situation it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi [(2023) 13 SCC 510 : 2023 INSC 621] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 514, para 12)
?12. ? 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 [(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] .?
11. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.
12. It is also a fact that the appellant had attributed that the respondent claimants connived with police and fraudulently prepared the charge-sheet. The contention is that the vehicle insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident and the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased. But the evidence on record would reveal that pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognizance was taken for rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo."
(emphasis supplied)
7. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another 2025 SCC OnLine Sc 497, has held as under:-
"4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver."
(emphasis supplied)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. It is evident that the FIR regarding the accident was got registered on 03.12.2018 at about 16:04 hours being Case Crime No. 283 of 2018, under Sections 279, 338, 304-A, 427 IPC by PW-1 Smt. Mamta Devi against the unknown driver of Motorcycle No. UP-78-DW-5812 at Police Station Chaubepur, Kanpur Nagar, which discloses that the husband of the first informant Bachchi Lal was driving Motorcycle No.UP-77-X-7182 on 16.11.2018, then it was hit from behind by the offending Motorcycle No.UP-78-DW-5812, due to which, Bachchi Lal suffered grievous injuries, who died on the spot. The FIR further discloses that the autopsy of the deceased was conducted on 17.11.2018 in Hallett Hospital, Kanpur Nagar and since the relevant documents of the deceased were missing and the family members were busy in the last rites of the deceased, as such the FIR could not be registered promptly.
11. The claimants have examined the widow of the deceased Smt. Mamta Devi as PW-1, Manish Kumar as PW-2 and eye witness Sahab Lal as PW-3. PW-1 and PW-2 have very fairly accepted that they have not witnessed the accident. PW-3 Sahab Lal has deposed that on 16.11.2018, Bachchi Lal was driving his motorcycle, then at 4:45 PM, it was hit by Motorcycle No. UP-78-CD-4107 from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which Bachchi Lal suffered grievous injuries who died on the spot. This witness has specifically deposed that he saw the accident and the offending driver was apprehended on the spot. This witness has deposed in cross-examination that he reached the spot of accident after about 10 minutes but on this basis, it cannot be presumed that he was not an eye witness of the accident. Further, the owner and driver of the offending motorcycle have not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Rohit Kumar of Motorcycle No. UP-78-CD-4107, under section 279, 338, 304-A, 427 of the I.P.C., which has not been challenged before a competent criminal court. PW-3 is also mentioned as an eye witness in the charge-sheet.
12. The Insurance Company has only examined its investigator, Vivek Dubey as DW-1, who is not an eye witness of the alleged accident. It is well settled that the recitals of the FIR cannot be assumed to be true and on that basis, the claim petition cannot be rejected. It is well settled that claim petition has to be decided on the basis of evidence available before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is not bound by the evidence submitted in the criminal case registered regarding the accident.
13. In view of this, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by Motorcycle No. UP-78-CD-4107, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. No other issue was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
14. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
15. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
16. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2025, is affirmed.
17. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
November 14, 2025
Mayank
