Ravindra v. UPSRTC Gorakhpur and another), whereby for the untimely death of Kusum

2. Learned counsel for the appellant- UPSRTC submitted that the factum of the accident was not proven beyond doubt by the claimant but still the Tribunal has held otherwise and has recorded a perverse finding i.e. the accident was caused by the offending bus. Learned counsel submitted that there was a contradiction between the testimony of eye witness and the manner in which the occurrence of the accident was disclosed in the claim petition, which renders the accident doubtful. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed with the appeal.

4. 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) 2 FAFO No. 2502 of 2025 “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 3 FAFO No. 2502 of 2025 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)

5. 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)

6. It is the claimant's case that on 20.07.2020 at 5:00 p.m., when Kusum @ Kusumawati Devi (deceased) was going with her nephew Sanjay on motorcycle from Pipra to her house, then in Bharvaliya within village Nauka Tola, it was hit by roadways Bus No.UP-53-BT-3455, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the deceased was crushed to death and died on the spot. It was mentioned in claim petition that the offending bus was apprehended on the spot by the police and an F.I.R. regarding the accident was registered on 20.07.2020 at 22:35 hours being Case Crime No.106 of 2020, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A I.P.C. against the driver of the offending Bus No.UP-53-BT-3455 at P.S. Thootibari, District Maharajganj.

7. The claimants examined PW-1 Ravindra, eye-witness PW-2 Baliram Singh and injured witness PW-3 Sanjay Vishwakarma, whereas the driver of the offending bus Nanhe Prajapati has examined himself as DW-1 and conductor Veer Bahadur Azad as DW-2 before the Tribunal.

8. PW-1 Ravindra has very fairly accepted that he was not an eye witness of the accident.

9. PW-2 Baliram Singh deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, which hit the motorcycle of the deceased, which was going ahead of his motorcycle, on which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider. He deposed that the bus crushed the deceased 4 FAFO No. 2502 of 2025 on the spot, who died instantaneously. He further deposed that the bus was chased and apprehended at the spot and the local police had also taken the bus in its possession. He further deposed that at the time of the accident, it was not dark and he had seen the accident.

10. The claimants have also examined PW-3 Sanjay Vishwakarma, who is himself an injured witness, who was driving the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider, who deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus.

11. The offending driver Nanhe Prajapati (DW-1) has denied in his examination-in-chief that the alleged accident was caused by his bus but he has admitted that on 20.07.2020, the bus was being driven on that route from Gorakhpur to Maharajganj. The conductor of the offending bus Veer Bahadur Azad (DW-2) has also admitted that the offending bus was being plied from Gorakhpur to Maharajganj.

12. It is apparent that the claim petition has been filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which the claimants are not required to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle, only the factum of the accident is to be proved by the claimants. From the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is proved that the accident was indeed caused by the offending Bus No.UP-53-BT-3455. After investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver of the roadways bus, which has not been challenged before a competent criminal court, as such, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by the offending bus.

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 22.07.2025 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. November 13, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)

2. Learned counsel for the appellant- UPSRTC submitted that the factum of the accident was not proven beyond doubt by the claimant but still the Tribunal has held otherwise and has recorded a perverse finding i.e. the accident was caused by the offending bus. Learned counsel submitted that there was a contradiction between the testimony of eye witness and the manner in which the occurrence of the accident was disclosed in the claim petition, which renders the accident doubtful. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and the documents annexed with the appeal.

4. 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) 2 FAFO No. 2502 of 2025 “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 3 FAFO No. 2502 of 2025 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)

5. 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)

6. It is the claimant's case that on 20.07.2020 at 5:00 p.m., when Kusum @ Kusumawati Devi (deceased) was going with her nephew Sanjay on motorcycle from Pipra to her house, then in Bharvaliya within village Nauka Tola, it was hit by roadways Bus No.UP-53-BT-3455, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the deceased was crushed to death and died on the spot. It was mentioned in claim petition that the offending bus was apprehended on the spot by the police and an F.I.R. regarding the accident was registered on 20.07.2020 at 22:35 hours being Case Crime No.106 of 2020, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A I.P.C. against the driver of the offending Bus No.UP-53-BT-3455 at P.S. Thootibari, District Maharajganj.

7. The claimants examined PW-1 Ravindra, eye-witness PW-2 Baliram Singh and injured witness PW-3 Sanjay Vishwakarma, whereas the driver of the offending bus Nanhe Prajapati has examined himself as DW-1 and conductor Veer Bahadur Azad as DW-2 before the Tribunal.

8. PW-1 Ravindra has very fairly accepted that he was not an eye witness of the accident.

9. PW-2 Baliram Singh deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus, which hit the motorcycle of the deceased, which was going ahead of his motorcycle, on which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider. He deposed that the bus crushed the deceased 4 FAFO No. 2502 of 2025 on the spot, who died instantaneously. He further deposed that the bus was chased and apprehended at the spot and the local police had also taken the bus in its possession. He further deposed that at the time of the accident, it was not dark and he had seen the accident.

10. The claimants have also examined PW-3 Sanjay Vishwakarma, who is himself an injured witness, who was driving the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider, who deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus.

11. The offending driver Nanhe Prajapati (DW-1) has denied in his examination-in-chief that the alleged accident was caused by his bus but he has admitted that on 20.07.2020, the bus was being driven on that route from Gorakhpur to Maharajganj. The conductor of the offending bus Veer Bahadur Azad (DW-2) has also admitted that the offending bus was being plied from Gorakhpur to Maharajganj.

12. It is apparent that the claim petition has been filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in which the claimants are not required to prove the negligence of the offending vehicle, only the factum of the accident is to be proved by the claimants. From the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is proved that the accident was indeed caused by the offending Bus No.UP-53-BT-3455. After investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver of the roadways bus, which has not been challenged before a competent criminal court, as such, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by the offending bus.

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 22.07.2025 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. November 13, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)