Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Puttan And 8 Others on 13 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181849
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2388 of 2025
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Puttan And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Anubhav 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 preferred by the insurer against the impugned judgment and award dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rampur, in MACP No. 208 of 2021, Puttan and others vs. Pradeep Kumar and others, whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.15,97,206/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum for the untimely death of Farman on 08.02.2021 due to injuries suffered in motor accident that occurred on 28.11.2020.
2. Factual matrix is that on 28.11.2020 at about 8:30 P.M., the deceased Farman was travelling as pillion rider along with his father Puttan on motorcycle bearing Registration No.UP-22-AQ-4435 from Rampur to his village Kakrauva, then suddenly a motorcycle Hero Honda No.UP-22-Z-2766, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell and sustained grievous injuries, who was taken to the hospital from where he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital, Delhi, but during treatment he died on 08.02.2021.
3. The first information report regarding the incident was registered on 24.01.2021 being Case Crime No.23 of 2021, under Sections 279, 338 I.P.C. at Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur, in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the motorcycle driver Pradeep Kumar Saini, who was driving motorcycle No.UP-22-Z-2766 at the time of the alleged accident.
4. Before the Tribunal, PW-2, Nazim was examined as eye witness of the accident, who proved that the offending motorcycle No.UP-22-Z-2766 came from behind, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner, and hit the motorcycle of the deceased bearing Registration No.UP-22-AQ-4435 due to which the pillion rider fell and sustained serious injuries.
5. In view of the above evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle No.UP-22-Z-2766, and accordingly fastened the liability on the insurer of that motorcycle.
6. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 25 years, bachelor and was carpenter, who was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled labour at Rs.8,758/- per month and accordingly granted 40% enhancement for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18 and after making deduction of half amount towards personal expenses, awarded a total amount of compensation of Rs.15,97,206/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company of the offending vehicle motorcycle No.UP-22-Z-2766 submitted that there was serious doubt regarding the involvement of the above motorcycle in the alleged accident, since the FIR regarding the accident was lodged belatedly. Further, no damage was found on the motorcycle of the deceased during the technical inspection of the vehicle, which proved that the accident was doubtful. Learned counsel submitted that PW-2 was not an eye witness of the alleged accident. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal ignored the aforementioned facts and erroneously awarded the compensation to the claimants. It was prayed that the appeal be admitted and heard on merits.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the documents submitted with the appeal and also the impugned judgment.
9. It is apparent that the owner and driver of the offending motorcycle No.UP-22-Z-2766, have not appeared in the witness box to deny the claimants' case.
10. Further after investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the above offending motorcycle.
11. Further, eye witness PW-2 Nazim has proved the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending motorcycle by deposing that the offending motorcycle came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider.
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in registering FIR in motor accident cases, held as under:-
"17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.
18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.
19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
15. It is also well settled that motor accident cases are not to be decided as a criminal trial and the evidence is also not to be appreciated, as in a criminal case. It is also well settled that a delay in lodging the FIR in an accident case is not in itself fatal to the claim petition because after accident, the family members of the injured give more priority to taking the injured to the hospital for treatment and only after the injured recovers or the injured dies, only then the FIR is registered.
16. In view of this, the Tribunal has not erred not concluding that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending motorcycle No.UP-22-Z-2766.
17. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered on the above grounds submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.
18. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
19. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
20. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.
21. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 13, 2025
Mayank
