Allahabad High Court
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Smt Tarawati And 3 Others on 29 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189621
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2469 of 2025
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt Tarawati And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Girja Shanker Mishra
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(UPSRTC) of the offending Bus No.UP-81-AF-1585 against the impugned judgment and award dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aligarh in MACP No. 733 of 2020, Smt. Tarawati & others Vs. Regional Manager, UPSRTC & others, whereby, compensation of Rs.45,82,480/- 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 Shiv Kumar Sharma in a road accident which occurred on 20.07.2020, which was ordered to be indemnified by the owner(UPSRTC) of the offending vehicle.
2. The factual matrix is that on 20.07.2020, the deceased Shiv Kumar Sharma was going from his house situated in Qasba Atrauli to Sadhu Ashram and when he was waiting at the roadside for conveyance at Avanti Bai Chauraha, Atrauli, then the offending Bus No.UP-81-AF-1585, which was coming from Naraura, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit Shiv Kumar Sharma(deceased), causing serious injuries, who was taken to the Malkhan Singh District Hospital for treatment, where he was declared dead. The driver of the roadways bus was caught on the spot by the police. The FIR was registered on 21.07.2020 against the driver of the offending bus No.UP-81-AF-1585 at police station Atrauli, District Aligarh being case crime No.291 of 2020 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. The deceased was aged about 61 years and was earning about Rs.1,50,000/- per month from salary, farming and animal husbandry. The tribunal has assessed his income on the basis of salary certificate, after deducting the income tax paid by him and as per the income tax return, as Rs.8,59,520/- per annum, deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 7, awarded Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium. The tribunal has not awarded any future prospects, keeping in view that the deceased was aged more than 60 years. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,82,480/- along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the owner(UPSRTC) of the offending vehicle, aggrieved against which, owner(UPSRTC) is in appeal before this Court.
3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the site plan, the accident was not caused by the negligence of the driver of the offending bus No.UP-81-AF-1585. He further submitted that since Vishnu Kumar Sharma PW-3 was not named in the charge sheet as an eye witness of the accident, as such, his testimony is unreliable, but the tribunal has not appreciated the above facts and has erroneously concluded that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the offending bus.
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 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. The Apex Court in the case of Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. vs. Mini Babu George & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883, held as under:-
16. The courts below have recorded the finding of non-involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness. In our considered view, a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation. There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in the accident. In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible. The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front bumper is curved. With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident.
10. The claimants have examined the widow of the deceased Smt. Tarawati as PW-1, Vishwabandhu Upadhyay as PW-2, Vishnu Kumar Sharma as PW-3 as an eye witness and Amit Garg as PW-4. The offending driver Prem Singh has examined himself as DW-1.
11. PW-1 and PW-2 have very fairly accepted that they are not an eye witnesses of the accident. Whereas, PW-4 has only proved the salary certificate of the deceased. PW-3 deposed that the accident occurred on 20.07.2020 at about 10.00 AM, when Shiv Kumar Sharma(deceased) was waiting on the roadside for conveyance at Avanti Bai Chauraha, Atrauli, then the offending Bus No.UP-81-AF-1585, which was coming from Naraura, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, who died on the same date.
12. Offending driver Prem Singh DW-1 has accepted that the offending bus was plying on that route and he was driving the bus at that time, who was accompanied by Jagendra Singh as contractual conductor. He also accepted that the bus had passed from the accidental spot. He also accepted that his vehicle was apprehended by the police and he was informed by the police that an accident was caused from his bus. He also admitted that in case crime No.291 of 2020 under Section 279, 304-A IPC, he was enlarged on bail by the criminal court and also the offending bus was released from the court. The claimants have also filed the technical inspection report of the bus in which the wind screen glass, towards the right side was found damaged. Besides this, after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Prem Singh under Section 279, 304-A IPC , which has not been challenged before the competent court. It is well settled that merely on the basis of the site plan, the occurrence of the accident in a particular manner, cannot be inferred. The insurance company has also not led any cogent evidence to prove that the accident was caused by some other vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus.
13. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus.
15. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
16. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
17. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 14.07.2025 is affirmed.
18. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant-U.P.S.R.T.C. to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 29, 2025
Himanshu
