Allahabad High Court
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Husna Jahan And 7 Others on 28 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188315
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2467 of 2025
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Husna Jahan And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Shreesh 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 Truck No.UP-12-T-1127 against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in MACP No. 758 of 2016, Smt. Husna Jahan & others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & others, whereby, compensation of Rs.10,36,567/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants(wife and children of deceased) for the untimely death of the deceased Mohd. Irfan on 29.04.2016 in an accident which occurred on 24.04.2016 which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. The factual matrix is that on 24.04.2016, the deceased Mohd. Irfan was driving his scooter No.UP-15-BF-1428 on which Mohd. Adnan was travelling as pillion rider, from Khatauli to his village Inchauli. The scooter was being driven by Mohd. Irfan carefully in a controlled speed on his side of the road, then at about 07.00 PM, when they reached Meerut-Mawana road near village Masoori, then the above scooter was hit by Truck No.UP-12-T-1127, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries to Mohd. Irfan,who died during treatment on 29.04.2016. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 54 years, who was working as tailor in Saudi Arabia and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month, but the tribunal has assessed his income on the basis of minimum wages of skilled worker as Rs.8767.85/- per month. The tribunal has deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses, granted future prospect of 10%, applied multiplier of 11, awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,36,567/- along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle, 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 the deceased died due to cardio respiratory failure. He further submitted that no fatal injury was found on the body of the deceased during autopsy and there was no nexus between the cause of death and the injuries sustained in the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was driving the scooter No.UP-15-BF-1428 in a careless manner, who himself contributed towards the accident but the tribunal has not appreciated this fact. He further submitted that from the site plan, it is evident that the entire fault was of the deceased who was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has not considered the above aspects and has allowed the claim petition erroneously. 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. From the document submitted with the appeal, it is evident that as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased suffered fracture and dislocation of cervical spine with quadriplegia and his cause of death was cardio respiratory failure. The deceased was admitted to Narayan Super Speciality Hospital, Meerut on 25.04.2016 at 07.30 PM, where during treatment he died on 29.04.2016 at 2:30 PM. The death certificate of the above hospital has been filed by the appellant. Similarly, the autopsy report of the deceased dated 30.04.2016 discloses that there were two drill holes in the parietal region of his skull, there were several injuries on his body and his ribs were found fractured. The doctor opined that all the injuries found on the body were ante-mortem.
6. The claimants examined Asif Ali as PW-1, Mohd. Islamuddin as PW-2, Kiran Singh as PW-3, Harish Kumar Ishwar as PW-4 and Mohd. Shahidas, PW-5.
7. Asif Ali PW-1 deposed that the deceased was admitted in serious conditions in Anand Hospital, Meerut from where he was referred to Narayan Hospital, Meerut where he died during treatment on 29.04.2016. PW-2 Mohd. Islamuddin is an eye witness of the accident who deposed that on the date of the accident, the deceased was driving a scooter No.UP-15-BF-1428 on his side of the road, then the above scooter was hit by Truck No.UP-12-T-1127, which came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries to Mohd. Irfan and also to pillion rider Mohd. Adnan. He also deposed that the truck driver of the offending Truck No.UP-12-T-1127 fled subsequently after abandoning the truck. The deceased (Mohd. Irfan) was taken to the Naryan Hospital, where he died on 29.04.2016 during treatment.
8. In cross examination PW-2 denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while turning his scooter No.UP-15-BF-1428. PW-3 Kiran Singh has proved the treatment papers of the deceased. PW-4 Harish Kumar is the record keeper of the Anand Hospital, who has proved the treatment papers of the deceased. PW-5 Mohd. Shahid has proved that the deceased was working as a tailor in Saudi Arabia.
9. It is also evident that neither the owner nor the driver of the offending truck appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. The insurance company has also not led any cogent evidence to prove that the accident was caused by some other vehicle and there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in driving his scooter carelessly.
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. 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.?
13. 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.?
14. It is evident that merely on the basis of the site plan it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is also apparent that after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck Krishna Kumar which has not been challenged in any court. It is evident from the evidence of PW-2 Mohd. Islamuddin that the offending Truck No.UP-12-T-1127 came from behind, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which hit the scooter of the deceased, as such, the plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, is liable to be rejected.
15. It is also evident that the deceased was severely injured in the accident and died due to the injuries sustained in the accident, as such, the plea of the insurance company that there was no nexus between his cause of death and the injuries sustained, is also liable to be rejected.The issue of quantum of compensation is left open to be decided in an appeal preferred by the claimants, if any.
16. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
17. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
18. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
19. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 14.08.2025 is affirmed.
20. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 28, 2025
Himanshu
