Sonu Chaturvedi and others v. Satendra Kumar and another), whereby for the untimely death of Ruby on

“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. 3 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 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 4 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 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. 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 5 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 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 claimants examined the husband of deceased Anurag Chaturvedi @ Sonu as PW-1, Ramanand as PW-2, Mukeem Khan as PW-3, whereas no oral evidence was led by the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending motorcycle.

8. PW-1 Anurag Chaturvedi @ Sonu has deposed that on

27.08.2016, he was standing on the road side along with his wife Ruby and others waiting for a conveyance for going to Kinhawar at Bichhwan Bhogaon road, then a motorcycle No.UP-84-U-6062 came from the side of Bhogaon, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which without blowing the horn hit Ruby, who was standing on the kachchi patri by the road side, due to which she was grievously injured. The accident occurred at about 4:00 p.m. He further deposed that on another motorcycle, PW- 2 and PW-3 chased the offending motorcycle but failed to apprehend it. He further deposed that Ruby was taken to District Hospital, Mainpuri for 6 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 treatment, from where she was referred to Safai, where she died on

31.08.2016 during treatment. He further deposed that he had registered the F.I.R. at P.S. Bichhwan against the offending motorcycle and in the accident, there was no negligence of the deceased. In cross-examination, he deposed that at the time of the accident, he was with his wife, who were standing on Kinhawar link road by the road side, and were waiting for conveyance for going towards Bhogaon . He further deposed that he memorized the registration number of offending motorcycle. He further deposed that after the death of his wife, he had got registered the F.I.R. through his brother after 15-20 days because he was grieving after the death of his wife.

9. PW-2 Ramanand has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and stated that he along with PW-3 Mukeem Khan were going on their motorcycle from Bichhwan to Bhogaon, then the accident occurred and they had also chased the offending motorcycle, but could not apprehend it. He further deposed that he had disclosed the registration number of the offending motorcycle to the family members of the deceased and had also given his statement to the police. This witness also deposed that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of driver of the offending motorcycle No.UP-84-U- 6062, in which there was no negligence of the deceased.

10. PW-3 Mukeem Khan has also corroborated the testimony of PW- 1 and PW-2 and has deposed that he had also chased the offending motorcycle but he could not apprehend it.

11. It is apparent that the owner-cum-driver of the offending motorcycle has not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim and after investigation in the criminal case, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Satendra Kumar of motorcycle No.UP-84-U-6062, on which cognizance has been taken under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 I.P.C.

12. It is evident that the F.I.R. in this case was registered on

09.09.2016, after the death of the deceased and after performing her last rites, as such, the delay has been satisfactorily explained by her 7 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 husband PW-1.

13. In view of the above evidence on record, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by the offending motorcycle No.UP-84-U-6062, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident.

14. No other issue was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, as such, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

17. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of filing of the appeal to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. January 27, 2026 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)

“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. 3 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 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 4 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 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. 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 5 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 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 claimants examined the husband of deceased Anurag Chaturvedi @ Sonu as PW-1, Ramanand as PW-2, Mukeem Khan as PW-3, whereas no oral evidence was led by the owner-cum-driver and insurer of the offending motorcycle.

8. PW-1 Anurag Chaturvedi @ Sonu has deposed that on

27.08.2016, he was standing on the road side along with his wife Ruby and others waiting for a conveyance for going to Kinhawar at Bichhwan Bhogaon road, then a motorcycle No.UP-84-U-6062 came from the side of Bhogaon, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which without blowing the horn hit Ruby, who was standing on the kachchi patri by the road side, due to which she was grievously injured. The accident occurred at about 4:00 p.m. He further deposed that on another motorcycle, PW- 2 and PW-3 chased the offending motorcycle but failed to apprehend it. He further deposed that Ruby was taken to District Hospital, Mainpuri for 6 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 treatment, from where she was referred to Safai, where she died on

31.08.2016 during treatment. He further deposed that he had registered the F.I.R. at P.S. Bichhwan against the offending motorcycle and in the accident, there was no negligence of the deceased. In cross-examination, he deposed that at the time of the accident, he was with his wife, who were standing on Kinhawar link road by the road side, and were waiting for conveyance for going towards Bhogaon . He further deposed that he memorized the registration number of offending motorcycle. He further deposed that after the death of his wife, he had got registered the F.I.R. through his brother after 15-20 days because he was grieving after the death of his wife.

9. PW-2 Ramanand has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and stated that he along with PW-3 Mukeem Khan were going on their motorcycle from Bichhwan to Bhogaon, then the accident occurred and they had also chased the offending motorcycle, but could not apprehend it. He further deposed that he had disclosed the registration number of the offending motorcycle to the family members of the deceased and had also given his statement to the police. This witness also deposed that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of driver of the offending motorcycle No.UP-84-U- 6062, in which there was no negligence of the deceased.

10. PW-3 Mukeem Khan has also corroborated the testimony of PW- 1 and PW-2 and has deposed that he had also chased the offending motorcycle but he could not apprehend it.

11. It is apparent that the owner-cum-driver of the offending motorcycle has not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim and after investigation in the criminal case, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Satendra Kumar of motorcycle No.UP-84-U-6062, on which cognizance has been taken under Sections 279, 304-A, 338 I.P.C.

12. It is evident that the F.I.R. in this case was registered on

09.09.2016, after the death of the deceased and after performing her last rites, as such, the delay has been satisfactorily explained by her 7 FAFO No. 2660 of 2025 husband PW-1.

13. In view of the above evidence on record, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by the offending motorcycle No.UP-84-U-6062, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident.

14. No other issue was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, as such, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

16. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

17. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of filing of the appeal to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. January 27, 2026 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)