Allahabad High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Smt. Guddi Devi And 5 Others on 13 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:182054
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1854 of 2025
The United India Insurance Company Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Guddi Devi And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Akhilesh Sharan Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Krishna Mohan Rai
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 Insurance Company against the Judgment and Award dated 01.05.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Etah in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 194/2017 (Smt. Guddi Devi and others v. Ramesh Chandra and others), whereby for the untimely death of Ranjeet in an accident which occurred on 12.02.2017, a compensation of Rs. 11,74,908/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle/ tractor no. UP 82 U 2808 has been ordered to indemnify the above award.
2. Factual matrix is that on 12.02.2017, the deceased Ranjeet was travelling with Subash Chandra @ Umesh Chandra and Deepu on Motorcycle No. UP-82-U-4762, which was hit by Tractor No. UP-82-U- 2808, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injuries to Ranjeet and Deepu(PW-2) and later on, Ranjeet died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. At the time of the accident, the deceased was 22 years old, bachelor, who was working as a motorcycle mechanic and was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month but the Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages for unskilled worker, prevailing at the time of the accident at the rate of Rs. 7215/- per month, in which, future prospects @ 40% were added and accordingly, the Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs. 11,74,908/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimants which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending tractor.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that the factum of the accident is disputed because in the FIR, it is mentioned that the offending vehicle was unknown but subsequently, the offending vehicle was involved in the accident with the collusion of the claimants. Learned counsel submitted that there was no eye-witness of the alleged accident, as such, the testimony of alleged eye-witness before the Tribunal is unreliable and the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation to the claimants on the basis of the above evidence.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 4 submitted that FIR regarding alleged accident was registered after 40 minutes of the accident, since the first informant was not eye-witness of the accident, as such, the registration number of the offending vehicle was not disclosed in the FIR. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending tractor. The owner and driver of the offending tractor have not appeared before the Tribunal to contradict the claim of the claimants. The Tribunal examined the injured witness PW-2 Deepu and another eye-witness PW- 3 Subhash Chandra who proved the factum of accident and the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending tractor. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the above facts, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged tractor and on this basis, fastening the liability to pay compensation on the appellant- Insurance Company.
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed with this 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. It is apparent that the First Information Report has been lodged by Satya Prakash on 12.02.2017 at 9.40 A.M. at P.S. Malawan, District Etah, whereas the accident took place at about 09.00 A.M. It is also apparent that the first informant was not eye-witness of the alleged accident, as such, the identity and registration number of the offending vehicle was not disclosed in the FIR. It is mentioned in the FIR that Ranjeet died on the spot due to the injuries suffered by him and Deepu was seriously injured who was taken to the hospital for treatment. It is also apparent that after investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver (Bahori Lal) of the above offending tractor who has been impleaded as opposite party no. 2 in the claim petition.
9. Although, the owner and driver of the offending tractor denied the accident but they failed to appear before the Tribunal to contradict the claim.
10. It is evident that before the Tribunal, the injured witness Deepu was examined as PW- 2 and another independent witness Subhash Chandra was examined as PW-3 who proved the accident and deposed that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver who came from the wrong side and hit the motorcycle head-on resulting in serious injuries to Deepu and Ranjeet. Since PW- 2 Deepu is an injured witness, as such, his testimony cannot be brushed aside. No contra evidence has been adduced by either the owner, driver of the offending tractor or the Insurance Company to prove that the alleged tractor was not involved in the accident.
11. In view of this, neither the factum of accident nor the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver can be denied by the appellant- Insurance Company. The Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the offending tractor was solely responsible for the accident and the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. Since, the insurance of the tractor by the appellant is not disputed, the Tribunal has not erred in ordering the Insurance Company to indemnify the compensation payable to the claimants.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, the appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
13. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 01.05.2025 is affirmed.
15. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit, of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellant- Insurance Company at the time of filing of this appeal, to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 13, 2025
Rama Kant
