Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Indrawati Devi And 10 Others on 17 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186630
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2444 of 2025
United India Insurance Co Ltd
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Indrawati Devi And 10 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Singh
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 Motorcycle No. UP-55-AH-6558 against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Siddharth Nagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 26 of 2023 (Indrawati Devi and others vs. Geeta and others), whereby, for the untimely death of Dinesh s/o Balai on 10.01.2023 due to injuries suffered in a road accident that occurred on 03.01.2023, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 10,61,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Motorcycle No. UP-55-AH-6558.
2. Factual matrix is that the deceased was driving Motorcycle No. UP-55-AB-1031 on 03.01.2023 towards the left side of the road in a slow speed and was returning home from his shop, then in front of the shop of Ganesh Chaurasiya at Kapiya Chauraha, the offending Motorcycle No.UP-55-AH-6558, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting in serious injuries to him, who was admitted to a private hospital for treatment but, was later taken to District Hospital Siddharth Nagar on 04.01.2023. As his health deteriorated, the deceased was referred to Medical College, Gorakhpur, but was admitted in Merigold Hospital, Gorakhpur on 04.01.2023. The deceased was finally admitted in KGMC Lucknow, where he died during treatment on 10.01.2023. The first information report regarding the accident was registered by Jagdish Kumar at Police Station Chilhiya, District Siddharth Nagar being Case Crime No. 6 of 2023, under Sections 279, 304-A IPC and 186 M.V. Act. The deceased was about 49 years old at the time of the accident and was running a cycle and tap shop, who was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.6,000/- per month, granted 25% towards future prospects, deducted 1/5th towards personal expenses, applied a multiplier of 13, and awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In all, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 10,61,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimants, but the Tribunal did not award interest on the future prospects.
3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was driving a Motorcycle No. UP-55-AB-1031 at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel further submitted that the deceased was aged more than 50 years at the time of the accident, as such, compensation should have been determined by applying multiplier of 11, but the Tribunal has assessed the compensation by applying multiplier of 13, which is erroneous. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and the 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 claimants examined the widow of the deceased, Indrawati Devi as PW-1 and PW-2 Madhur Jaiswal as eye witness of the accident. The Insurance Company examined DW-1, Izhar Ahmad Khan, investigator. PW-1, Indrawati Devi very fairly admitted that she was not an eye witness of the accident. PW-2, Madhur Jaiwal deposed that at the time of the accident, he was standing nearby and saw that Motorcycle No.UP-55-AH-6558 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, which hit the deceased, who was driving the Motorcycle No. UP-55-AB-1031. He deposed that the offending motorcycle hit the motorcycle of the deceased from behind, resulting in serious injuries to the deceased, who was taken for treatment. He further deposed that his shop was near the place of the accident, both the motorcycles came from the same direction and the accident occurred at the turn. This witness is not related to the deceased and is an independent witness. The Insurance Company has examined DW-1 Izhar Ahmad Khan, who is investigator and was not an eye witness of the alleged accident, as such, on the basis of his testimony, it cannot be inferred that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving his motorcycle No. UP-55-AB-1031 at the time of the accident.
8. It is also apparent that after investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending motorcycle, Abhimanyu Singh, who has not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim.
9. In view of the above facts, there is no evidence to presume that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased in driving his motorcycle at the time of the accident, as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was negligence on the part of the deceased is rejected.
10. It is apparent that on the basis of documents and evidence available before it, the Tribunal has determined compensation by concluding that the deceased was aged between 46-50 years at the time of the accident and has accordingly applied multiplier of 13.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that since the deceased was aged about 50 years, as such, compensation should have been determined by applying multiplier of 11. It is also apparent that the Tribunal has not determined the compensation on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled labour prevailing in the State of U.P. at the time of the accident, has not awarded interest on the future prospects and out of the 9 claimants, has only awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- to one claimant. The Tribunal has awarded future prospects at the rate of 25% whereas under Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, future prospects are to be awarded at the rate of 30% for a person aged between 40-50 years. All these factors are favourable to the Insurance Company.
12. In the totality of circumstances, the Tribunal has awarded less compensation to the claimants, which cannot be reduced any further in this appeal. The issue of adequacy of compensation is left open to be determined in an appeal preferred by the claimants, if any.
13. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
14. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
15. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 26.07.2025 is affirmed.
16. 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
Mayank
