Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Ram Mohan And Another on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:187003
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2446 of 2025
United India Insurance Company Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ram Mohan And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Abhishek 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 insurer of the offending Bolero Jeep No.UP-77-R-3552 against the impugned judgment and award dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat in MACP No. 330 of 2017, Shri. Ram Mohan Vs. Shivendra Kumar & Another, whereby, compensation of Rs.20,88,010/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded to the injured(Ram Mohan), for the injuries suffered in an accident which occurred on 15.07.2016 which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. The factual matrix is that the injured claimant Ram Mohan was riding as pillion rider on motorcycle no. UP-78- CQ-6368, which was driven by Jay Kishan(paternal uncle of the injured), were going to village Bhangapurva, PS Shivli, then at 06:00 P.M. his motorcycle No.UP-78-CQ-6368 was hit by the offending Bolero Jeep No.UP-77-R-3552, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, on the wrong side of the road, which collided head on with the above motorcycle, resulting in serious injury to the motorcycle driver Jay Kishan and the claimant(Ram Mohan). The claimant sustained serious injuries to his right leg and was admitted to Primary Health Centre, Shivli, for treatment. The claimant was then admitted to SIS Memorial Nursing Home, Maswanpur, Kanpur when his condition further deteriorated. The leg of the deceased got infected due to the injuries suffered from the accident, as a result of which the right leg of the deceased was amputated below knee. An FIR was registered on 07.08.2016 at 2:25 PM in police station Shivli, Kanpur Dehat by the claimant's brother Radha Mohan against the offending driver of Bolero Jeep black color No.UP-35-F-4789 but after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the driver Shivendra Kumar of Bolero Jeep No.UP-77-R-3552. On the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 22 years who was working as a mason and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month, but the tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.9,000 per month, granted future prospect of 40 % , assessed permanent disability of 65%, applied multiplier of 18, awarded Rs.88,970/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.60,000 towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000 towards nutritional expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards medical travelling expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards attendant expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of future marriage prospect due to permanent disability. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,88,010/- along with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum to the claimant, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Bolero Jeep, aggrieved against which, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court.
3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that in the FIR, the accident was alleged to be caused by black color Bolero Jeep No.UP-35-F-4789 but after investigation, it was found that Bolero vehicle No. UP-77 R-3552 was involved in the accident, which makes the whole accident doubtful. He further submitted that there was a delay of 22 days in lodging FIR which also shows that there was something unusual in the accident and in the charge sheet, another vehicle was subsequently planted in collusion with the claimant, with the help of the police. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the site plan, it is evident that there was contributory negligence on the part of the motor cycle driver but the tribunal has not considered it. It was further submitted that the owner of the offending Bolero vehicle No. UP-77-R-3552 has denied the accident as such, in view of the above facts, the accident was not proved and the claimant was not entitled to get any compensation and consequently, the insurance company of the offending vehicle could not have been ordered to pay compensation to the claimant. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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 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."
8. 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.?
9. 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.?
10. It is evident that the FIR discloses that it was registered by the brother of the claimant Radha Mohan on 07.08.2016 at Police Station Shivli ,Kanpur Dehat. The FIR discloses that the accident was caused by Bolero Jeep No.UP-35-F-4789, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which hit the motor cycle of the claimant head-on, coming on the wrong side of the road, due to which the claimant suffered serious injury, in which his right leg was amputated It also discloses that the first informant took the claimant to SIS Memorial Nursing Home, Kanpur where operation was performed on the injured, and due to the infection, the claimant's right leg was amputated. Due to the treatment, the first informant remained busy and as such, he could not register the FIR promptly. Sufficient explanation has been submitted by the informant for registering the FIR with delay as such, it cannot be said that the FIR has been deliberately registered with delay.
11. It is also apparent that the first informant is not an eye witness of the accident. It is also apparent that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle Bolero Jeep No.UP-77-R-3552 has denied the accident but has not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. It is apparent that the claimant has examined himself before the tribunal as PW 1 and has specifically deposed that he was pillion rider on motor cycle No. UP-78-CQ-6368 then the offending Bolero Jeep came from wrong side of the road and hit his motor cycle head on resulting in serious injury to him. He further deposed that his right leg was crushed under the wheels of the Bolero vehicle, resulting in serious injury to him. An FIR was registered by his brother. He further deposed that his right leg was amputated below the knee due to which he has suffered permanent disability. He deposed that he and his uncle saw the offending vehicle but the FIR was registered by his brother. It is also evident that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the driver Shivendra Kumar of the offending Bolero vehicle, on which cognizance has been taken by the competent Criminal Court.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the site plan, it is evident that there was some contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver, but it is well settled that only on the basis of the site plan, contributory negligence on the part of any particular driver cannot be presumed and it has to be proved by leading cogent evidence, in accordance with law.
13. In this case, neither the driver of the offending vehicle nor the insurer has led any evidence to prove the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, as such, merely on the basis of the site plan, it cannot be inferred that there was some contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle.
It is evident that in view of the aforesaid facts, it is amply proved that offending vehicle was Bolero No. UP-77-R-3552 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, which hit the motor cycle of the deceased from the front by coming on the wrong side of the road, in which there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. The tribunal has not erred in concluding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle and since the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant, the tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant.
14. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The issue of quantum of compensation is left open.
15. This court has not expressed any opinion on the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
16. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
17. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
18. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 23.07.2025 is affirmed.
19. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 17, 2025
Himanshu
