Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, ... vs Smt. Aarti Sharma And 4 Others on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186850
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2447 of 2025
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Regional Office Rajapur
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Aarti Sharma And 4 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 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the owner of the offending Bus No.UP33-AT-4837 against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Prayagraj in MACP No. 448 of 2023, Smt. Arti Sharma & others Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. & another, whereby, for the untimely death of Amit Kumar Sharma in motor acident that occurred on 28.07.2023, compensation of Rs.63,99,532/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the owner of the offending bus UPSRTC.
2. Factual matrix is that on 28.07.2023, Amit Kumar Sharma was standing infront of Kaudihar Vikas Khand, under the police station Nawabganj, District Prayagraj by the roadside at 02:00 PM, then the offending bus No.UP-33-AT-4837, which was being driving in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the deceased who suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. The FIR regarding the above accident was registered at P.S. Nawabganj, District Prayagraj on 28.07.2023 being Case Crime No.341 of 2023, under Sections 279, 304-A IPC against the unknown driver of the offending bus No.UP-33-AT-4837, in which after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the bus driver Sunil Kumar Mishra. At the time of the accident, the deceased was about 41 years old, and was working as Class IV employee in the Panchayati Raj Department, Prayagraj as a sweeper, and was drawing the monthly salary of Rs.42,648/-. The tribunal assessed the compensation by including all allowances payable to him at Rs.42,648/- per month, which comes to Rs.5,11,776/- per annum, granted 30% future prospect, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 14, awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. In all, the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.63,99,532/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimants and the appellant has been ordered to pay it, being the owner of the offending bus No.UP33-AT-4837.
3. In view of the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident but the tribunal has not considered this. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the tribunal has not made the necessary deduction of income tax paid by the deceased, and has awarded excessive interest. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.
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. Before the tribunal, the claimants examined the widow of the deceased Aarti Sharma as PW-1 and Monu Kumar Sharma as PW-2. The driver of the offending vehicle Sunil Kumar Mishra was examined as DW-1 and conductor Gauri Srivastava as DW-2.
8. The eyewitness, Monu Kumar Sharma (PW-2), deposed that at the time of the accident, the offending bus was being driven at a speed of 70?80 km/h. It hit the deceased, who was standing by the roadside. He further stated that if the driver of the offending bus had been cautious, the accident could have been avoided.He further deposed that he was present at the spot and saw the accident. The driver of the offending bus Sunil Kumar Mishra DW-1 also admitted the accident but, deposed that on 28.07.2023 at 1.10 PM when he reached Kaudihar market, then a bolero jeep hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the motorcycle collided with the bus. He deposed that his bus hit the motorcycle of the deceased, and he had informed about the accident to his senior officials. He admitted that he was enlarged on bail by the competent criminal court and had not registered an FIR against the driver of the above bolero jeep. He also admitted that he had not disclosed to the police and his higher officials that the deceased had collided with his bus due to his own negligence, and he was not driving the offending bus negligently. He also admitted that a charge sheet was submitted against him, which was not challenged by him before the competent court. Besides this, the conductor DW-2 Gauri Srivastava also admitted about the accident, that the motorcycle of the deceased collided with the left-rear side of the bus.
9. It is apparent that after investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending bus Sunil Kumar Mishra DW-1 and there is no evidence to presume that the deceased in any manner contributed to the accident or there was any negligence on his part. In view of this, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased.
10. It is further apparent that the tribunal has awarded the compensation on the basis of the salary certificate of the deceased, who was a government employee drawing monthly salary of Rs.42,648/-, who was getting basic salary of Rs.28,400/-, D.A. Rs.11,928/- HRA Rs.2,320/-, gross salary of Rs.42,648/- in which a deduction of Rs.2410/- and GIS of Rs.100/- was made and was getting net salary of Rs.40,138/-. There was no deduction of income tax from his salary, as such, the tribunal has taken the gross salary for awarding compensation which is not erroneous. The tribunal has rightly awarded future prospect of 30% and has made a deduction of 1/3rd, whereas there were 4 dependents of the deceased, according to which 1/4th amount should have been deducted towards personal expenses, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma(Smt.) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2009) 6 SCC 121. There is no evidence on this point that his father Ambika Prasad, who was 67 years old, was not dependent on him. The tribunal has not recorded any finding as to why the deceased's father was not considered as dependent on the income of the deceased, as such, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is erroneous to this extent. It is true that the tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum which is more than the rate of 7% per annum mandated in Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 but keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, it cannot be said that the tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants.
11. No other issue has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.
12. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
13. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 14.07.2025 is affirmed.
15. 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
