Allahabad High Court
State Of Up And Another vs Sharda Devi And 5 Others on 29 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:189479
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2468 of 2025
State Of Up And Another
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Sharda Devi And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Amit Manohar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ajeet Kumar Singh
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 State being the owner of the offending vehicle No.UP-62-AG-0142 against the impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.315 of 2016 (Sharda Devi and others vs. State of U.P. through District Magistrate, Jaunpur and others), whereby compensation of Rs.8,18,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded to the claimants for the untimely death of Dukhran (deceased) on 07.01.2016 in a motor accident that took place on 29.12.2015 which has been ordered to be indemnified by the owner of the offending vehicle.
2. Factual matrix is that on 29.12.2015 Dukhran(deceased) was going on his bicycle for doing labour, then at about 9:00 a.m. near Bharthipur Tiraha, he was hit by police jeep No.UP-62-AG-0142 belonging to police station Sureri, which was being driven by its driver Anil Rai in a rash and negligent manner, causing grievous injuries to the deceased. The accident was witnessed by many people. The deceased was taken in the police jeep No.UP-62-AG-0142 and got admitted to Jeevan Dhara hospital in Bhadohi, from where the deceased was discharged by the doctors of the hospital as his family was unable to bear the expenses of further treatment, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries and died on 07.01.2016. Since, the accident was caused by the above vehicle of the police station Sureri, the police did not register the F.I.R. and the claimant was compelled to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in CJM Court, Jaunpur. for getting the F.I.R. registered, which was allowed, but since the accident was caused by the police vehicle, a final report was submitted. A protest petition was filed by the wife of the deceased in Vth ACJM Court, Jaunpur on 29.01.2024 which was also allowed and the matter was again sent to the police for further investigation.
3. At the time of the accident, the deceased was aged about 55 years and was a labourer, who was earning about Rs.7,000/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses, granted future prospects of 10%, applied multiplier of 11, awarded consortium of Rs.40,000/- each to the widow, three sons and one daughter, awarded Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, In this way, the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,18,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal has not awarded any interest on the compensation of future prospects of Rs.59,400/-.
4. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant- State submitted that the accident is wholly doubtful. It was submitted that the offending vehicle UP-62-AG-0142 was subsequently implanted by the claimants, in order to obtain fraudulent compensation from the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that in the police investigation, it was also found that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and it has been fraudulently involved. Learned counsel submitted that since the accident was not caused by the offending vehicle, as such, the State has no liability to pay any compensation whatsoever to the claimants but the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence on record and erroneously ordered the State to indemnify the compensation payable to the claimants.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants - respondent nos.1 to 5 submitted that since the offending vehicle belongs to the police department, as such, the investigation by the police was not fair and due to this, after investigation a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer Lal Bahadur Singh, which was challenged by the claimants by filing protest petition before the Vth ACJM Court, Jaunpur which was accepted and the matter was sent for further investigation to the concerned police. Learned counsel submitted that since the accident was caused by the offending vehicle belonging to the State, as such, there is no possibility of fair investigation. In this case, the State has used its machinery to deprive the claimants from obtaining compensation. With theses submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and be dismissed at the admission stage.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and documents annexed with the appeal.
7. 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)
8. The Apex Court in the case of Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi & Another (2023) 13 SCC 510, held as under:-
11. Insofar as the claim petition filed by the appellant herein is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim petitions filed by the appellant herein or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as the case may be, in causing the accident. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits. It is needless to observe that if the proof of negligence on the part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not established then, in that event, the claim petition will be disposed of accordingly.
12. In this context, we could refer to the judgments of this Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [(1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-AIPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [ (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101], it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. 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 [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] .
13. In that view of the matter, it is for the appellant herein to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry in the petition filed by him seeking compensation on account of death of his son in the said accident. Thus, the opinion in the final report would not have a bearing on the claim petition for the aforesaid reasons. This is because the appellant herein is seeking compensation for the death of his son in the accident which occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry, causing the accident on the said date. It is further observed that in the claim petitions filed by the dependents, in respect of the other passengers in the car who died in the accident, they have to similarly establish the negligence in accordance with law.
(emphasis supplied)
9. It is apparent that since the matter involved a vehicle belonging to the police department, the police did not register an F.I.R. and as such, the claimants were compelled to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the CJM Court, Jaunpur which was allowed and subsequently, an F.I.R. was registered with delay on 29.07.2016 at 6:45pm being Case Crime No.447/2016, as such, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that in this matter, since, the F.I.R. was registered with delay, the accident was doubtful, is rejected. In the circumstances, there was no delay on the part of the claimants in approaching the CJM Court for getting the matter investigated.
10. The claimants have examined the widow of the deceased Sharda Devi as PW-1 and Munna as PW-2. The State has examined the Investigating Officer of the criminal case Ajay Kumar Sharma(S.I.) as DW-1.
11. PW-1 Sharda Devi has deposed that when her husband was going to do labour then on reaching Bharthipur Tiraha, the offending vehicle of the police department which belonged to police station Sureri, hit her husband Dukhran, which was being driven by Ashwani Rai in rash and negligent manner, The accident was witnessed by Nanhelal Gupta, Dabbu, Phoolan Devi, Munna, Indu Devi, who stopped the police jeep and the deceased was taken by the police personnel and people present on the spot to the Jeevan Dhara Hospital, Bhadohi, where due to paucity of funds, he was discharged from the hospital and she was forced to bring her husband back to the house where he died after three days. She deposed that after the death of her husband, she went to the police station Rampur and gave information to the police regarding the accident and requested the police to conduct the autopsy of the deceased but the police personnel refused and assured her that they would bear her expenses, however, they later failed to fulfill their assurance. She further deposed that she was compelled to move an application before the S.P., Jaunpur and thereafter, on the order of the C.J.M,Jaunpur, the case was registered. She specifically deposed that the accident occurred from the jeep belonging to the police station Sureri, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. In the cross examination, she fairly accepted that she was not an eye witness of the accident.
12. The claimants examined PW-2 Munna as eye witness of the accident, who deposed that on 29.12.2015 at 9:00 a.m., when the deceased was gong on his bicycle, then he was hit by jeep No.UP-62-AG-0142 belonging to the police station Sureri, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, causing serious injuries to the deceased. He subsequently deposed that he saw the accident and the police jeep was stopped on the spot and the police personnel had taken the deceased by the police jeep to Jeevan Dhara Hospital in District Bhadohi, where he was admitted but he died subsequently due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He subsequently deposed that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In cross examination, he deposed that the offending vehicle hit the deceased head-on. He also deposed that the police did not register the F.I.R. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot and had subsequently planted the police vehicle in the accident.
13. The State has examined the Investigating Officer of the criminal case Ajay Kumar Sharma as DW-1, who deposed that in Case Crime No.447 of 2016, under Section 279, 338, 304-A I.P.C., P.S. Rampur, District Jaunpur, a final report was submitted after investigation against which the claimants had filed protest petition, which was allowed and the matter was remanded for further investigation. He further deposed that in his investigation, the people informed him that the accident was not caused by the police vehicle but some other vehicle and as such, he had submitted final report in this case. He admitted that after further investigation, again he had submitted final report in the case. He further deposed that as per his investigation, the offending vehicle was not present on the spot and it was also not driven by Anil Rai but Ashwani Rai. He further deposed that Anil Rai was deployed from 9:15 to 20:45 hours on Cobra mobile duty. In cross examination, the Investigating Officer was confronted with the statement of Sharda Devi, Phoolan Devi, Inno Devi, Munna Harijan recorded in the case diary, which disclosed that the accident was indeed caused by police vehicle No.UP-62-AG-0142, then he failed to answer why the statement of the above witnesses were recorded in the case diary.
14. It is evident that there was sufficient evidence in the case diary but still the Investigating Officer in the criminal case has submitted final report in the criminal case, which is not binding on the Tribunal. It is well settled that even if, in the criminal case, the offending driver is acquitted even then, it cannot be presumed that there was no negligence on the part of that driver or the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The claim petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence available before the Tribunal.
15. In view of the above settled position of law, even if in this case the F.I.R. was not registered by the police, there is no Panchayatnama or post-mortem report of the deceased, even then, it is apparent that the police has deliberately not registered the F.I.R. and has also not conducted Panchayatnama and autopsy of the deceased, so as to deprive the claimants from obtaining the compensation. There is sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the accident was indeed caused by the offending police vehicle No.UP-62-AG-0142, as such, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant regarding the factum of accident is rejected. It is also proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending driver.
16. This Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the adequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. No other issue was pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.
17. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
18. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.
19. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 08.07.2025 is affirmed.
20. The appellant is directed to deposit the compensation, alongwith interest awarded by the Tribunal within a period of one month, failing which, the Tribunal is directed to adopt coercive measures to recover the above amount, in accordance with law.
21. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 29, 2025
Jitendra
