Allahabad High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Gayatri Devi And 4 Others on 30 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:190918
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2523 of 2025
The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Gayatri Devi And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Rajeev Chaddha
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.
2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Vehicle No. DL8-CQ-5682 against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 321 of 2020 (Gayatri Devi and others vs. Vikki and others), whereby, for the untimely death of Amit Kumar in a motor accident that occurred on 28.02.2020, a compensation of Rs. 17,90,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the accident is wholly doubtful. The FIR regarding the accident has been registered belatedly. The alleged eye witness of the accident, PW-2 Sohanpal Singh is not named in the chargesheet, which has been submitted against the offending driver.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that from the evidence of investigator, Rajeev Agrawal-DW1, of the Insurance Company, it is evident that the accident was doubtful. It was further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation on the basis of income of Rs.9,000/- per month of the deceased, which was excessive, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.
5. 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.
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in registering FIR in motor accident cases, held as under:-
"17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.
18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.
19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
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 PW-1 Gayatri Devi and eye witness Sohanpal Singh as PW-2, whereas the Insurance Company has examined its investigator Rajeev Agrawal as DW-1, who is not an eye witness of the accident.
11. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle No.DL8-CQ-5682 filed their written statement before the Tribunal, in which they have admitted the accident and submitted that it occurred due to the negligence of the motorcycle driver.
12. PW-1 Gayatri Devi has very fairly accepted in her cross-examination that she was not an eye witness of the accident.
13. PW-2 Sohanpal Singh deposed that on 28.02.2020 at about 2:30 PM, when he was in his field to look after his crops, Amit Kumar was returning on his Motorcycle No.UP13-BH-4473 after working as a mason from the side of Jhanjhar. Near his field, a Van No. DL8-CQ-5682 came from the side of Jahangirpur, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the aforesaid motorcycle head-on, which was moving at a slow speed on his side. As a result, Amit Kumar sustained grievous injuries and was taken to Kailash Hospital, Noida, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. He specifically deposed that he witnessed the accident and, in his cross-examination, stated that he had informed the Investigating Officer about the incident about 2?3 days after its occurrence. The autopsy report of the deceased discloses that he died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries suffered by him.
14. After investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the offending driver Vikki, under Sections 279, 338, 427, 304-A IPC, which has not been challenged before the criminal court. It is true that in this chargesheet, PW-2 Sohanpal Singh is not mentioned as an eye witness but it is not fatal to the claimants' case. The FIR regarding the accident has been registered on 29.02.2020 at 00:46 hours being Case Crime No.17 of 2020, under Sections 279, 338, 427, 304-A IPC by Hitesh Kumar, which discloses that Amit Kumar was driving his motorcycle No.UP13-BH-4473, then on 28.02.2020 at 2:30 PM, he was hit by some unknown vehicle.
15. It is apparent that the first informant is not an eye witness of the accident, as such, non mentioning of the registration number of the offending vehicle in the FIR, cannot be held as fatal, to the claimants' case. It is well settled that even if, there is no eye witness of the accident but after investigation a chargesheet has been submitted against a particular driver, then it will be deemed that the accident was caused due to his rash and negligent driving and it will also be deemed that the vehicle, which was being driven by him was involved in the accident.
16. In view of this, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by the offending vehicle No.DL8-CQ-5682, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
17. The Tribunal has assessed the compensation by taking monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- per month, keeping in view, that he was a mason, who is a skilled labourer. The deceased was only 26 years old. The Tribunal has only granted future prospects at the rate of 40%, which is erroneous, keeping in view Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, which mandates future prospects @ 50%, if the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Since, the Tribunal has already awarded less compensation to the claimants, as such, it cannot be reduced any further. No other issue was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.
18. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
19. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
20. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 22.07.2025 is affirmed.
21. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 30, 2025
Mayank
