Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Seema Devi And 9 Others on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186230
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1962 of 2025
National Insurance Company Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Seema Devi And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Ashok Kumar Srivastava
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 insurance company of the offending motorcycle No.UP-86-AA-5332 against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hathras in MACP No. 141 of 2020, Smt. Seema Devi & others Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd & others, whereby, compensation of Rs.1,03,86,880/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants for the untimely death of Dharmveer Singh in a road accident on 22.11.2020.
2. Factual matrix is that the deceased was going on motorcycle No.UP-83-X-9423 on 22.11.2020 at 08.00 PM from Jalesar to Sadabad, then offending Motorcycle No. U.P.86-AA-5332 came from the front and on the wrong side of the road, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, which collided head on with the motorcycle of the deceased on Sahpau Sadabad Road, resulting in serious injuries to the deceased, who died on the way to the hospital, near Vinova Nagar Sadabad. The FIR regarding the above accident was registered at P.S. Sahpau, District Hathras on 23.11.2020 at 8:30 AM being Case Crime No.231 of 2020, in which after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against Abhishek Yadav, the driver of the offending motorcycle No.UP-86-AA-5332 . At the time of the accident the deceased was about 33 years old, and was working as Operator-1st in Graziano Transmissional India Pvt. Ltd, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar and was drawing salary of Rs.51,471/- per month. The tribunal assessed his annual income as Rs.6,14,100/-, made a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 16, granted future prospect of 40%, awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,03,86,880/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum but the tribunal did not pay interest on the future prospects.
3. In view of the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that since the accident was caused head on, as such, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased but the tribunal has not appreciated this and fastened the whole liability on the other motorcycle. He further submitted that the tribunal has not deducted the income tax paid by the deceased, while assessing the compensation, which is errenous. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the accident itself is doubtful. It was submitted that no amount of compensation could have been awarded to the claimants because the accident took place due to the own negligence of the deceased. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant 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 Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 166, held as under:-
?20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.
20.6. The post-mortem report, Ext. A-5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal as his stomach was half-full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit. The aforesaid evidence, Ext. A-5 clearly suggests that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that the deceased was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The mere suspicion based on Ext. B-2 ?scene mahazar? and Ext. A-5 post-mortem report cannot take the place of evidence, particularly, when the direct evidence like PW 3 (independent eyewitness), Ext. A-1 (FIR), Ext. A-4 (charge-sheet) and Ext. B-1 (FI statement) are on record.?
8. The Apex Court in the case of Prabhavati & Ors. vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, held as under:-
?10. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar, came to the conclusion that there wasn't any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle.
11. Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma(supra) where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 539. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.?
9. It is apparent that as per the claim petition the deceased was driving motorcycle No.UP-83-X-9423 on the date of accident, then it was hit head-on by Motorcycle No. U.P.86-AA-5332 which came on the wrong side of the road, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, resulting in serious injuries to the deceased, who died on the way to the hospital.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has relied on the site plan to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle.
11. The claimants have examined PW-1 Seema Devi, PW-2 Salik Ram, PW-3 Ramji Lal. It is apparent that PW-1 & PW-2 have very fairly accepted that they are not an eye witness of the accident. PW-3 Ramji Lal deposed that the deceased was driving his motorcycle, in front of his motorcycle, then at 08.00 PM the offending motorcycle came from the front and after coming on the wrong side of the road, it hit the motorcycle of the deceased, causing grievous injuries to him. He deposed that his motorcycle was about 5-6 foot behind the motorcycle of the deceased. He further deposed that the collision took place between two motorcycles but the negligence was of the offending motorcycle, which came from front and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. It is apparent that after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the driver Abhishek Yadav, who was driving the offending motorcycle who has not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim.
12. Further, the appellant insurance company has also not adduced any evidence to prove that there was contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident. It is well settled that merely on the basis of site plan it cannot be inferred that the accident took place due to the negligence of a particular driver and it has to be proved before the tribunal by adducing cogent evidence.
13. In view of these facts, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in driving his motorcycle at the time of the accident.
14. It is also apparent that deceased was employed and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.51,471/- which was proved by Ravi Rawat, PW-4. This witness proved the appointment letter dated 22.01.2020, attendance salary of the deceased and the deceased was employed at the post of Operator. The witness proved the salary of deceased as under:-
Period
Gross Salary(in Rs.)
Net Salary After Deduction(in Rs.)
26.08.2020-25.09.2020
51,707/-
48,196/-
26.09.2020-25.10.2020
51,471/-
47,497/-
26.10.2020-25.11.2020
60,681/-
57,833/-
Total(in Rs.)
1,63,859/-
1,53,526/-
15. The tribunal has duly recorded a finding that in the financial year 2020-21 the deceased was not liable to pay the income tax. The tribunal has considered the total net salary for the month of August, September and October 2020 as Rs.1,53,526/- and averaged it, and came to the conclusion that the deceased was getting an average salary of Rs.51,175/- and on this basis, has assessed the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.6,14,100/-.
16. It is apparent that the tribunal has only awarded future prospect at the rate of 40% whereas, since the deceased was aged below 40 years, as per Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants were entitled to get future prospect at the rate of 50%. Further, the tribunal has not awarded interest on the future prospect which is also erroneous keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru & Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 1431 and also by this Court in Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Yashoda Neutral Citation: 2025 AHC 184060.
17. If the compensation awarded by the tribunal is considered in totality, keeping in view that the tribunal has not awarded future prospect at the rate of 50%, not awarded interest on the future prospects component of compensation of Rs. 29,47,680/- and only awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- to only one claimant out of 7 claimant, then it cannot be said that the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants. Judicial notice can be taken that a salaried employee is entitled to claim standard deduction of Rs.50,000/- under Section 16 and a deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Act, by which the income tax liability of the employee is substantially reduced.
18. No other issue has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.
19. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
20. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
21. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.05.2025 is affirmed.
22. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 16, 2025
Himanshu
