Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Smt. Shabana And 8 Others on 16 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186540
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2432 of 2025
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Shabana And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Sunil Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the UP State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.290 of 2021 (Smt. Shabana and others vs. Sudhir Kumar and another), whereby for the untimely death of Rashid in a road accident which occurred on 26.05.2021 at 9:30 PM, compensation of Rs.23,33,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to claimants, which has been ordered to be paid by owner of offending bus UPSRTC.
2. Factual matrix of the case is, that on 26.05.2021 at 9:30 p.m. deceased Rashid, who was allegedly a driver on Truck No.UP-72-AT-4630, after unloading the goods from his truck, was returning from Kannauj to Ghaziabad. The deceased was accompanied by Sohail Khan, who was the helper/conductor of the same Truck. While returning, the deceased stopped in Bankiya, District Mainpuri at Yadav Dhaba, wherein after parking his truck on the road side he was going to take meals, during which a roadways Bus No. UP-14-FT-3487, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing the horn and coming from the wrong side hit Rashid, which caused him grievous injuries and resulted in his instant death. The F.I.R. regarding this accident was registered on 27.05.2021 at 9:35 hours at P.S. Bevar, District Mainpuri, which was registered as Case Crime No.238 of 2021, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304 A of I.P.C. The autopsy of the deceased was conducted at post-mortem house, District Mainpuri. The deceased was about 30 years old, was employed as a driver in Yadav Trailer Services, Meerut Road, Industrial Area, near Humdard Company, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, was having valid driving licence and was drawing a salary of Rs.18,500/- per month. The Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.10,000/- per month, awarded future prospects of 40%, made a deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 16, awarded consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each to all the seven claimants, awarded Rs.16,500/- each towards the loss of estate and funeral expenses. In this way, the Tribunal awarded compensation Rs.23,33,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants which was ordered to be paid by UPSRTC.
3. In this factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant U.P.S.R.T.C. submitted that there was no documentary proof of the income of deceased, as such, the Tribunal has erred in assessing his income to be Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel further submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was crossing the road without noticing that the bus of the appellant was coming. Learned counsel further submitted that in the facts of the case, there was some negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident but the Tribunal has erred in holding that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing and decided on merits.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted by the appellant 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. According to the claim petition, the deceased after unloading the goods from his truck was intending to have meals and while he was crossing the road, he was hit by the offending bus. It has been mentioned in the claim petition that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner, which failed to blow the horn and came from the wrong side.
10. In the written statement submitted by the driver of the offending bus Sudhir Kumar, he has admitted the accident but has submitted that it occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. He submitted that on the date of the accident, he was driving the bus cautiously in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and at the time of the accident, the deceased was talking on his mobile and suddenly crossed the road without noticing the bus. He further submitted that he blowed the horn of the bus and applied emergency brakes, but the deceased did not notice them and as such, collided with the bus.
11. The claimants examined the widow of the deceased Smt. Shabana as PW-1 and Shahid as PW-2. PW-1 clearly admitted that she was not an eye witness to the accident. PW-2 deposed that the driver of the offending bus did not blow the horn of the bus, came from the wrong side and hit the deceased, due to which he suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. He deposed that he saw the accident. The Tribunal also considered the site plan, which showed that the offending bus hit the deceased at the side of the road. Besides this, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending bus driver Sudhir Kumar and in view of the above evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the offending bus, which cannot be said to be perverse.
12. It is apparent that according to the claimants, the deceased was a professional driver, who was drawing salary of Rs.18,500/- per month. The claimants produced the driving license of the deceased, according to which, it was valid for driving commercial vehicles from 25.06.2019 till 28.06.2022. The Tribunal considered that there was no documentary evidence of the deceased?s income, but still keeping in view his profession, has assessed his monthly income at Rs.10,000/- which cannot be said to be perverse because the deceased fell into the category of skilled workman. Further, the Tribunal has only awarded future prospects @ 40% whereas, according to Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants were entitled to 50% future prospects. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has not erred in assessing the compensation by taking the monthly wages of deceased at Rs.10,000/- and also concluding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident. There is no perversity in the judgment, insofar, as the above two issues are concerned. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be reduced.
13. In view of the above facts, the factum of accident and the negligence on the part of the bus driver cannot be denied and as such, the Tribunal has not erred in allowing the claim petition. There is no merit in this appeal and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
14. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
15. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 30.06.2025 is affirmed.
16. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by U.P.S.R.T.C. to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 16, 2025
Jitendra
