Allahabad High Court
Tata Aig General Insurane Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Brajesh Yadav And 3 Others on 7 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:176765
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2303 of 2025
Tata Aig General Insurane Co. Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Brajesh Yadav And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amitanshu Gour
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 preferred by the insurer against the judgment and award dated 26.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut, in MACP No. 236 of 2014 Brajesh Yadav and another vs. Smt. Anita Verma and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.41,39,440/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum for the untimely death of Susheel Kumar in motor accident dated 28.10.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that award of the Tribunal is erroneous because it was a hit and run case, the offending vehicle was not named in the F.I.R. and there was no eye witness of the alleged accident. Learned counsel submitted that subsequently, the offending vehicle has been impleaded in the accident, which is not reliable. Learned counsel submitted that in view of this, the award of the Tribunal is erroneous.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record.
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the Tribunal has discussed the issue of factum of accident and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, elaborately. It is true that in the F.I.R., the offending vehicle is not named but in subsequent investigation, it has been revealed that the accident was caused by Car No.UK 07 AV 1015 and after investigation a charge sheet has been submitted against the driver of the above offending vehicle. Moreover, eyewitness Gajey Singh PW-2 has proved the accident and negligence of the offending driver before the Tribunal.
7. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have filed their written statement before the Tribunal, in which they admitted the factum of accident, but submitted that it occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased who was driving motorcycle No. UP-20S-1071 at the time of accident. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle have not appeared in the witness box to oppose the claimants case.
8. No other plea was raised by the learned counsel.
9. In view of the above, this appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
10. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
11. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.
12. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 7, 2025
Jitendra
