Allahabad High Court
The National Insurance Company Limited vs Ashutosh Babu And Another on 25 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:210902
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2757 of 2025
The National Insurance Company Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ashutosh Babu And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Pradeep Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the insurer of the offending Maruti Omni Car No.UP-79-F-2054, against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 372 of 2016 (Ashutosh vs. Brijendra Singh Sharma and another), whereby, for the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 18.04.2016, a compensation of Rs.82,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending vehicle.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that in the FIR registered regarding the accident the number of the offending vehicle was disclosed as UP-78-CD-0744, which makes the accident doubtful.
3. Learned counsel submitted that it is apparent that the claimant has subsequently altered the registration number of the offending vehicle as UP-79-F-2054, which was contrary to the recitals of FIR, as such, the Tribunal should have rejected the claim petition, but the Tribunal has held otherwise. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing and decided on merits.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.
5. 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)
6. 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)
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. The claimant-Ashutosh Babu has examined himself before the Tribunal as PW-1, who deposed that the accident occurred on 18.04.2016 at 4:00 pm, when he was standing by the road side near Turaiyapur bridge waiting for a conveyance alongwith Ram Kumar and Gautam Kumar for attending the marriage of his aunt's daughter, then a Maruti Van No.UP-79-F-2054, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and hit all the three persons due to which he and Ram Kumar were grievously injured and Ram Kumar later on died on the way to the hospital. He further deposed that he was admitted to the hospital. He further deposed that after the accident the number plate of the offending vehicle No.UP79-F-2054 had fallen somewhere. The FIR was registered by the father of the deceased at Police Station Bharthana, in which erroneously the number of offending vehicle was mentioned as UP-78-CD-0744, whereas the accident was caused by Maruti Van No. UP-79-F-2054. He further deposed that he had disclosed the correct number of the offending vehicle to the Investigating Officer.
9. It is apparent that neither the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim nor the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has led any independent evidence to prove that the accident was caused by some other vehicle.
10. Besides this, it is well settled that the Tribunal is not bound by the recitals of the FIR and even if the FIR discloses that the accident occurred in a particular manner, which is contrary to the recitals of the claim petition, even then the claim petition cannot be rejected on that ground. It is also apparent that after investigation in the criminal case, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of Maruti Omni Van No.UP-79-F-2054 (Sunil Kumar Sharma) under Sections 279, 338, 337 and 304-A IPC, which has not been challenged before a competent criminal court.
11. In view of the above evidence on record, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by Maruti Omni Van No.UP-79-F-2054, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver at the time of the accident. No other issue was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
12. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
13. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 18.08.2025 is affirmed. This Court has not examined the adequacy of compensation awarded to the claimant, by the tribunal.
15. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant-Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
November 25, 2025
Mayank
