Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Ranno And 4 Others on 30 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:190522
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2518 of 2025
United India Insurance Company Limited
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Ranno And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Pankaj Rai
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 insurer of the offending motorcycle No.UP-77-J-9116 against the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat in M.A.C.P. No.211 of 2018 (Smt. Ranno and another vs. Shri Naresh Singh and others), whereby compensation of Rs.6,64,800/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded to claimants for the untimely death of Ram Lal on 06.06.2018 in a motor accident which occurred on 05.06.2018, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending vehicle.
2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that on 05.06.2018, Ram Lal (deceased) was proceeding on foot from village Mohana, after purchasing ration, towards his native village Himmapurwa, then in front of the house of Om Prakash within the jurisdiction of police station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat at about 8:30 a.m., he was hit by motorcycle No.UP-77-J-9116, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in grievous injuries to him, who subsequently was taken to Hallett Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, where he died during treatment on 06.06.2018 at 3:00 am. The F.I.R. regarding the accident was registered on 11.06.2018 at police station Gajner, District Ramabai Nagar being Case Crime No.161 of 2018, under Sections 279, 304-A I.P.C. against Kuldeep, driver of offending motorcycle No.UP-77-J-9116. The deceased was aged about 55 years at the time of the accident and was involved in farming, agriculture and milk selling business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed his income at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses, granted future prospects @ 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 has awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,64,800/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum to the claimants, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle No.UP-77-J-9116, aggrieved against which, the instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.
3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that the accident was wholly doubtful. The F.I.R. discloses the name of the offending driver as Kuldeep but subsequently, after investigation charge sheet was submitted against Kalyan Singh. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimants have concealed the real age of the deceased and the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to the claimants. It was further submitted that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company and perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed 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 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."
7. 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.
8. The claimants have examined the son of the deceased Sunil as PW-1 and eye witness Ramkesh @ Bhola Yadav as PW-2. P.W-1 Sunil has very fairly accepted that he is not an eye witness of the accident.
9. PW-2 Ramkesh @ Bhola Yadav in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accident occurred on 5.06.2018 at about 8:30 a.m. in front of the house of Om Prakash in village Himmapurwa, within the jurisdiction of police station Gajner, District Kanpur Dehat, when he was cleaning outside his house, he saw that the deceased Ram Lal was walking towards the left side of the road then suddenly a motorcycle No.UP-77-J-9116, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came from behind and without honking, hit Ram Lal, who was grievously injured, who was taken to the Hallet Hospital, Kanpur Nagar, where he died during treatment on 06.06.2018. This witness specifically deposed that he saw the accident. This witness was cross examined by the Insurance Company and was asked whether the offending driver was arrested or not, to which he feigned ignorance. He deposed that the police had not arrived at the spot and the deceased was taken in an ambulance to District Hospital, Akbarpur from where he was referred to Hallett Hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the accident and was giving false testimony in the court.
10. It is apparent that neither the owner nor driver of the offending vehicle have appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. The Insurance Company has also not led any evidence to prove that the accident was caused otherwise or there was no negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle No.UP-77-J-9116. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Kalyan Singh, under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C., which has not been challenged in any competent court.
11. It is apparent that the eye witness PW-2 Ramkesh @ Bhola Yadav has not been cross-examined regarding the identity of the offending driver by the Insurance Company. No such suggestion was given to him that a particular driver was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. In fact, no question on the identity of the offending driver has been asked in cross-examination by the Insurance Company from PW-2, as such, all the pleas taken in this appeal regarding the identity of the offending driver are rejected. It is well settled that the claim petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in it. It is also well settled that the F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and if it discloses that the offending vehicle was being driven by Kuldeep, but if it is not proved before the Tribunal, then on the basis of it, the accident cannot be deemed as doubtful. Further the F.I.R. discloses that since the deceased died on 06.06.2018, as such, the family members of the deceased were busy in performing his last rites and as such, the F.I.R. could not be registered promptly. Sufficient explanation for lodging the F.I.R. with delay has been given by the claimants, as such, only on this ground the claim petition cannot be rejected.
12. The Tribunal has considered the age of the deceased as 55 years and has accordingly, granted him future prospects @ 10%. The Tribunal has determined the income of deceased on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled labour, which cannot be said to be perverse in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur and Others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1778
13. No other issue was pressed by learned counsel for the appellant.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award dated 28.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal, as such, this appeal has no merits and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
16. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
October 30, 2025
Jitendra
