The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Nazreen And

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that from the evidence of the driver of the offending truck Mohd. Sajid DW-1 it was proved that the deceased was driving his motorcycle No.DL-7-SAN-0423 in an intoxicated condition, in a rash and negligent manner, which collided with the offending Truck No.UP-80-CT-3825 from behind, which was parked by the road side. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the offending truck was stationary at the time of the accident and the deceased collided his motorcycle with the back side of the above truck which itself proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, but the tribunal has held otherwise and has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company, which is erroneous.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal. 2 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025

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) “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 3 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 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)

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 FIR regarding the incident was registered on 23.05.2023 at 22.30 hours being case crime No.212 of 2023 under Section 279, 304-A and 427 IPC, at Police Station Mussoorie, District Ghaziabad against the unknown driver of truck No.UP-80-CT-3825 which disclosed that at the time of the accident in the night of 21/22.05.2023, the first informant's brother Ayub Khan was driving his motorcycle No.DL-7-SAN-0423 alongwith Tara Chand, who was on another motorcycle, which was behind the motorcycle of Ayub Khan, who were returning from Ghaziabad then after passing Mussoorie near Banke Bihari Dental College at 11.15 PM, suddenly the 4 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 truck No.UP-80-CT-3825 over took the motorcycle of Ayub Khan and applied brake, due to which Ayub Khan failed to control his motorcycle and collided with the back side of the above truck, as a result of which Ayub Khan had sustained grievous injuries who was admitted to the Rama Hospital, but he died during treatment. The FIR disclosed that the truck driver fled after the accident.

7. The claimants have examined before the tribunal, the widow of the deceased Nazreen as PW-1 and eye witness Rahisuddin as PW-2. whereas the driver of the offending truck Mohd. Sajid has examined himself as DW-

8. PW-1 Nazreen has very fairly accepted that she is not an eye witness of the accident. Rahisuddin PW-2 deposed that on the night of 21/22.05.2023, his brother Ayub Khan was driving motorcycle No. DL-7-SAN-0423 alongwith him and Tara Chand, who were on another motorcycle, which was behind the motorcycle of Ayub, who were returning from Ghaziabad, then after passing Mussoorie near Banke Bihari Dental College at 11.15 PM suddenly truck No.UP-80-CT-3825, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and over took the motorcycle of Ayub and suddenly applied brakes, stopping the truck in front of the motorcycle of Ayub Khan due to which Ayub Khan could not control his motorcycle and collided with the back side of the truck. He further deposed that the truck driver fled after causing the accident. He specifically deposed that the above accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the above truck driver.

9. In cross examination PW-2 deposed that he was at a distance of about 40- 50 meter behind the motorcycle of Ayub Khan and at the time of the accident, the speed of the motorcycle of Ayub Khan was about 30-35 kmph. The accident occurred on the road from Ghaziabad to Hapur and the offending truck came from behind. He further deposed that if the offending truck had not over taken the motorcycle of Ayub Khan then perhaps the accident would not have occurred because just after overtaking the motorcycle, the truck had given an indicator for turning. He very fairly accepted that the motorcycle of Ayub Khan collided with the back side of the truck and he had taken the deceased to Rama Hospital, where he died during treatment.

10. Mohd. Sajid DW-1 deposed that on 21.05.2023 he was driving truck 5 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 No.UP-80-CT-3825 cautiously according to rules and regulation of traffic and was taking his truck from Ghaziabad towards Hapur then near Banke Bihari Dental College, District Ghaziabad his truck got over heated as such, he had lighted the indicator and parked his truck by the road side then a motorcycle driver came from Ghaziabad, who was intoxicated and was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, who collided with the back side of the truck due to which he suffered grievous injuries. He specifically deposed that in the accident, there was no negligence on his part. He further deposed that freight weighing 18 tons was loaded on his truck. He had not overloaded the truck on the date of accident. He further deposed that his truck used to get over heated after every 15-20 K.M. He also admitted in the cross examination that he had neither complained to any official that the deceased was intoxicated nor got any case registered against the deceased. He also accepted that he was enlarged on bail by the criminal court.

11. From the statement of DW-1 itself, it appears that the truck was loaded with freight weighing 18 tons and as per DW-1, his truck got over heated after running for about 15-20 KM, which was improbable. If the truck was not in a fit condition, then why DW-1 was driving his truck after loading it with 18 tons freight and due to this reason, the tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of DW-1, which cannot be termed as perverse.

12. It is also apparent from the testimony of Rahisuddin PW-2 that the offending truck came from behind, which was being driving in a rash and negligent manner, which suddenly applied brakes and gave indicator to turn and due to this, the deceased could not control his motorcycle who collided with the back side of the truck, in which there was no negligence of the deceased. It is also apparent that in the criminal case No.212 of 2023, after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver of the truck Mohd. Sajid under Section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC which has not been challenged before any criminal court. Further, there was no evidence to prove either from the injury report or the postmortem report of the deceased that he was driving the motorcycle in an intoxicated condition as such, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant contrary to it, is rejected.

13. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts, the tribunal has not erred in concluding 6 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Truck No.UP-80-CT-3825.

15. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

16. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

17. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2025 is affirmed. This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the adequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants.

18. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant insurance company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. November 26, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that from the evidence of the driver of the offending truck Mohd. Sajid DW-1 it was proved that the deceased was driving his motorcycle No.DL-7-SAN-0423 in an intoxicated condition, in a rash and negligent manner, which collided with the offending Truck No.UP-80-CT-3825 from behind, which was parked by the road side. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the offending truck was stationary at the time of the accident and the deceased collided his motorcycle with the back side of the above truck which itself proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased, but the tribunal has held otherwise and has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company, which is erroneous.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal. 2 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025

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) “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 3 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 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)

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 FIR regarding the incident was registered on 23.05.2023 at 22.30 hours being case crime No.212 of 2023 under Section 279, 304-A and 427 IPC, at Police Station Mussoorie, District Ghaziabad against the unknown driver of truck No.UP-80-CT-3825 which disclosed that at the time of the accident in the night of 21/22.05.2023, the first informant's brother Ayub Khan was driving his motorcycle No.DL-7-SAN-0423 alongwith Tara Chand, who was on another motorcycle, which was behind the motorcycle of Ayub Khan, who were returning from Ghaziabad then after passing Mussoorie near Banke Bihari Dental College at 11.15 PM, suddenly the 4 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 truck No.UP-80-CT-3825 over took the motorcycle of Ayub Khan and applied brake, due to which Ayub Khan failed to control his motorcycle and collided with the back side of the above truck, as a result of which Ayub Khan had sustained grievous injuries who was admitted to the Rama Hospital, but he died during treatment. The FIR disclosed that the truck driver fled after the accident.

7. The claimants have examined before the tribunal, the widow of the deceased Nazreen as PW-1 and eye witness Rahisuddin as PW-2. whereas the driver of the offending truck Mohd. Sajid has examined himself as DW-

8. PW-1 Nazreen has very fairly accepted that she is not an eye witness of the accident. Rahisuddin PW-2 deposed that on the night of 21/22.05.2023, his brother Ayub Khan was driving motorcycle No. DL-7-SAN-0423 alongwith him and Tara Chand, who were on another motorcycle, which was behind the motorcycle of Ayub, who were returning from Ghaziabad, then after passing Mussoorie near Banke Bihari Dental College at 11.15 PM suddenly truck No.UP-80-CT-3825, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and over took the motorcycle of Ayub and suddenly applied brakes, stopping the truck in front of the motorcycle of Ayub Khan due to which Ayub Khan could not control his motorcycle and collided with the back side of the truck. He further deposed that the truck driver fled after causing the accident. He specifically deposed that the above accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the above truck driver.

9. In cross examination PW-2 deposed that he was at a distance of about 40- 50 meter behind the motorcycle of Ayub Khan and at the time of the accident, the speed of the motorcycle of Ayub Khan was about 30-35 kmph. The accident occurred on the road from Ghaziabad to Hapur and the offending truck came from behind. He further deposed that if the offending truck had not over taken the motorcycle of Ayub Khan then perhaps the accident would not have occurred because just after overtaking the motorcycle, the truck had given an indicator for turning. He very fairly accepted that the motorcycle of Ayub Khan collided with the back side of the truck and he had taken the deceased to Rama Hospital, where he died during treatment.

10. Mohd. Sajid DW-1 deposed that on 21.05.2023 he was driving truck 5 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 No.UP-80-CT-3825 cautiously according to rules and regulation of traffic and was taking his truck from Ghaziabad towards Hapur then near Banke Bihari Dental College, District Ghaziabad his truck got over heated as such, he had lighted the indicator and parked his truck by the road side then a motorcycle driver came from Ghaziabad, who was intoxicated and was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, who collided with the back side of the truck due to which he suffered grievous injuries. He specifically deposed that in the accident, there was no negligence on his part. He further deposed that freight weighing 18 tons was loaded on his truck. He had not overloaded the truck on the date of accident. He further deposed that his truck used to get over heated after every 15-20 K.M. He also admitted in the cross examination that he had neither complained to any official that the deceased was intoxicated nor got any case registered against the deceased. He also accepted that he was enlarged on bail by the criminal court.

11. From the statement of DW-1 itself, it appears that the truck was loaded with freight weighing 18 tons and as per DW-1, his truck got over heated after running for about 15-20 KM, which was improbable. If the truck was not in a fit condition, then why DW-1 was driving his truck after loading it with 18 tons freight and due to this reason, the tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of DW-1, which cannot be termed as perverse.

12. It is also apparent from the testimony of Rahisuddin PW-2 that the offending truck came from behind, which was being driving in a rash and negligent manner, which suddenly applied brakes and gave indicator to turn and due to this, the deceased could not control his motorcycle who collided with the back side of the truck, in which there was no negligence of the deceased. It is also apparent that in the criminal case No.212 of 2023, after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver of the truck Mohd. Sajid under Section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC which has not been challenged before any criminal court. Further, there was no evidence to prove either from the injury report or the postmortem report of the deceased that he was driving the motorcycle in an intoxicated condition as such, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant contrary to it, is rejected.

13. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company.

14. In view of the aforesaid facts, the tribunal has not erred in concluding 6 FAFO No. 2700 of 2025 that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Truck No.UP-80-CT-3825.

15. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

16. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

17. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 29.07.2025 is affirmed. This Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the adequacy of compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants.

18. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant insurance company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. November 26, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)