Smt. Vimlesh v. Umashankar and others), whereby for the injuries sustained in a road accident th

2018 (Smt. Vimlesh vs. Umashankar and others), whereby for the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 24.03.2018, a compensation of Rs.35,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Tractor No.UP-79-M-7951.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the F.I.R. regarding the accident was lodged by Lal Bahadur, who is the father-in-law of the claimant on 25.03.2018 at 1:45 hours being Case Crime No.288 of 2018 at PS Ajeetmal, District Auraiya under section 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC, which discloses that he went to the site of the accident and saw the offending Sonalika tractor there, which was having Chassis No. BYBD1146919553 and Engine No. 31021L43L465718FS. Learned counsel further submitted subsequently, it was found that the above tractor was not insured, as such, the claimant alleged that the accident was caused by another Sonalika tractor No.UP-79-M-7951, which was having a different chassis and engine number from the one mentioned in the F.I.R. It was submitted that since the F.I.R. was registered by the father-in-law of the claimant, as such, the claimant was bound by that F.I.R. and she cannot subsequently allege that the accident was caused by some other tractor. Learned 2 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 counsel submitted that from the above facts, it is proved that the accident was doubtful. The Tribunal has held otherwise and has fastened liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company, which is erroneous.

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

4. 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)

5. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari & Ors.(2021) 18 SCC 596 held as under:-

8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Kuncham Lavanya & Ors. vs Bajaj (emphasis supplied) 3 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine 749, held as under:-

17. The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not identified. However, since an FIR is not expected to be encyclopaedic and is only for the purpose of putting into motion criminal law such that thorough and full-fledged investigation by the police ensues, it is the duty of the investigating agency to find out the identity of the culprit which in the present case would be the offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that initially the FIR records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/claimants to later come up with the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the obvious caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle has to be based on cogent and reliable evidence.

7. It is true that the F.I.R. regarding the alleged accident was registered by Lal Bahadur, who is the father-in-law of the claimant on 25.03.2018 at 1:45 hours at P.S. Ajeetmal, District Auraiya being Case Crime No.288 of 2018 against the unknown driver of a Sonalika tractor. It is true that the F.I.R. discloses the Chassis No.BYBD1146919553 and Engine No.31021L43L465718FS of the Sonalika tractor, which according to the first informant was present on the spot of accident. It is also apparent that the first informant is not an eye witness of the accident, since the accident occurred at 6:30 p.m. on 24.03.2018.

8. The claimant Smt. Vimlesh examined herself, who is also an eyewitness/injured witness as PW-1 and the Insurance Company examined its investigator Prateek Yadav as DW-1.

9. Smt. Vimlesh (PW-1) reiterated the averments of the claim petition the cross regarding in her examination-in-chief. In the accident examination, she also deposed that at the time of the accident, she was travelling as pillion rider with her deceased husband on the motorcycle, then accident occurred on 24.03.2018 at 6:30 p.m. She deposed that the accident occurred with a tractor and the tractor driver had fled, leaving the offending tractor on the spot of the accident. After the accident, she went 4 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 to Saifai Hospital for treatment. She also deposed that in the accident, her husband had died. She was not unconscious. She further admitted that the F.I.R. was registered by her father-in-law, who was not an eye witness.

10. It is apparent that the Insurance Company has not put its defence case, as taken in this appeal, to PW-1 in cross-examination by suggesting that her father-in-law saw the offending tractor on the spot of the accident, which was having a different registration number, from the one which has been alleged by the claimants in their claim petition. It is very much apparent that in the cross-examination PW-1 has not been suggested that since the real tractor causing the accident was not insured, as such, subsequently, another tractor was planted for getting false compensation from the Insurance Company.

11. Pradeep Yadav (DW-1), the Law Officer of the appellant - Insurance Company has deposed that the offending tractor, whose chassis number and engine number were disclosed in the F.I.R., was not insured with any Insurance Company and due to this, subsequently, the claim petition was filed claiming that the accident was caused by some other Sonalika tractor. In the cross examination, he admitted that Tractor No.UP-79-M- 7951 was insured on the date of the accident with the appellant-Insurance Company. He failed to disclose whether the police had confiscated the offending tractor from the spot of the accident. When this witness was asked whether he knew that the police had ceased tractor No.UP-79-M- 7951 from the spot and made a G.D. Entry No.28 at 20:30 hours on

25.03.2018, then this witness feigned ignorance regarding that G.D. entry but deposed that the claimant in collusion with the police had falsely implanted tractor No.UP-79-M-7951. He further feigned ignorance regarding submission of charge sheet against Sudhir Kumar Dubey, driver of tractor No.UP-79-M-7951.

12. It is apparent that in the criminal case after investigation a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Sudhir Kumar Dubey of Sonalika tractor No.UP-79-M-7951 under Sections 279,337,338,304-A and 427 IPC in Case Crime No.288 of 2018, on which cognizance has been taken by the criminal court. It is also apparent that first informant Lal Bahadur is not an eye witness of the alleged incident, 5 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 as such, on the basis of his testimony the involvement of a particular tractor cannot be decided in this case. It is also well settled that even if the recitals of F.I.R. disclosed that an accident was caused by a particular vehicle but in the criminal investigation, it comes to light that it was caused by some other vehicle even then, the claim petition cannot be rejected on the basis of the recitals of F.I.R. It is also apparent that the eye witness/injured witness PW-1 has not been confronted in cross- examination by the Insurance Company regarding false involvement of tractor No.UP-79-M-7951 and further, neither any evidence has been led by the owner and driver of the tractor No.UP-79-M-7951 to prove that this vehicle was not involved in the accident nor they have appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. In view of the above evidence on record, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by Sonalika tractor No.UP-79-M-7951, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.

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

14. In view of aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal, insofar as the issue of factum of accident and negligence of offending driver of tractor is concerned.

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

16. 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 tribunal concerned, forthwith. November 26, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)

2018 (Smt. Vimlesh vs. Umashankar and others), whereby for the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 24.03.2018, a compensation of Rs.35,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Tractor No.UP-79-M-7951.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the F.I.R. regarding the accident was lodged by Lal Bahadur, who is the father-in-law of the claimant on 25.03.2018 at 1:45 hours being Case Crime No.288 of 2018 at PS Ajeetmal, District Auraiya under section 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 IPC, which discloses that he went to the site of the accident and saw the offending Sonalika tractor there, which was having Chassis No. BYBD1146919553 and Engine No. 31021L43L465718FS. Learned counsel further submitted subsequently, it was found that the above tractor was not insured, as such, the claimant alleged that the accident was caused by another Sonalika tractor No.UP-79-M-7951, which was having a different chassis and engine number from the one mentioned in the F.I.R. It was submitted that since the F.I.R. was registered by the father-in-law of the claimant, as such, the claimant was bound by that F.I.R. and she cannot subsequently allege that the accident was caused by some other tractor. Learned 2 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 counsel submitted that from the above facts, it is proved that the accident was doubtful. The Tribunal has held otherwise and has fastened liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company, which is erroneous.

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

4. 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)

5. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari & Ors.(2021) 18 SCC 596 held as under:-

8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, had taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the first information report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the first information report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the first information report.

6. The Apex Court in the case of Kuncham Lavanya & Ors. vs Bajaj (emphasis supplied) 3 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine 749, held as under:-

17. The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not identified. However, since an FIR is not expected to be encyclopaedic and is only for the purpose of putting into motion criminal law such that thorough and full-fledged investigation by the police ensues, it is the duty of the investigating agency to find out the identity of the culprit which in the present case would be the offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that initially the FIR records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/claimants to later come up with the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the obvious caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle has to be based on cogent and reliable evidence.

7. It is true that the F.I.R. regarding the alleged accident was registered by Lal Bahadur, who is the father-in-law of the claimant on 25.03.2018 at 1:45 hours at P.S. Ajeetmal, District Auraiya being Case Crime No.288 of 2018 against the unknown driver of a Sonalika tractor. It is true that the F.I.R. discloses the Chassis No.BYBD1146919553 and Engine No.31021L43L465718FS of the Sonalika tractor, which according to the first informant was present on the spot of accident. It is also apparent that the first informant is not an eye witness of the accident, since the accident occurred at 6:30 p.m. on 24.03.2018.

8. The claimant Smt. Vimlesh examined herself, who is also an eyewitness/injured witness as PW-1 and the Insurance Company examined its investigator Prateek Yadav as DW-1.

9. Smt. Vimlesh (PW-1) reiterated the averments of the claim petition the cross regarding in her examination-in-chief. In the accident examination, she also deposed that at the time of the accident, she was travelling as pillion rider with her deceased husband on the motorcycle, then accident occurred on 24.03.2018 at 6:30 p.m. She deposed that the accident occurred with a tractor and the tractor driver had fled, leaving the offending tractor on the spot of the accident. After the accident, she went 4 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 to Saifai Hospital for treatment. She also deposed that in the accident, her husband had died. She was not unconscious. She further admitted that the F.I.R. was registered by her father-in-law, who was not an eye witness.

10. It is apparent that the Insurance Company has not put its defence case, as taken in this appeal, to PW-1 in cross-examination by suggesting that her father-in-law saw the offending tractor on the spot of the accident, which was having a different registration number, from the one which has been alleged by the claimants in their claim petition. It is very much apparent that in the cross-examination PW-1 has not been suggested that since the real tractor causing the accident was not insured, as such, subsequently, another tractor was planted for getting false compensation from the Insurance Company.

11. Pradeep Yadav (DW-1), the Law Officer of the appellant - Insurance Company has deposed that the offending tractor, whose chassis number and engine number were disclosed in the F.I.R., was not insured with any Insurance Company and due to this, subsequently, the claim petition was filed claiming that the accident was caused by some other Sonalika tractor. In the cross examination, he admitted that Tractor No.UP-79-M- 7951 was insured on the date of the accident with the appellant-Insurance Company. He failed to disclose whether the police had confiscated the offending tractor from the spot of the accident. When this witness was asked whether he knew that the police had ceased tractor No.UP-79-M- 7951 from the spot and made a G.D. Entry No.28 at 20:30 hours on

25.03.2018, then this witness feigned ignorance regarding that G.D. entry but deposed that the claimant in collusion with the police had falsely implanted tractor No.UP-79-M-7951. He further feigned ignorance regarding submission of charge sheet against Sudhir Kumar Dubey, driver of tractor No.UP-79-M-7951.

12. It is apparent that in the criminal case after investigation a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Sudhir Kumar Dubey of Sonalika tractor No.UP-79-M-7951 under Sections 279,337,338,304-A and 427 IPC in Case Crime No.288 of 2018, on which cognizance has been taken by the criminal court. It is also apparent that first informant Lal Bahadur is not an eye witness of the alleged incident, 5 FAFO No. 2775 of 2025 as such, on the basis of his testimony the involvement of a particular tractor cannot be decided in this case. It is also well settled that even if the recitals of F.I.R. disclosed that an accident was caused by a particular vehicle but in the criminal investigation, it comes to light that it was caused by some other vehicle even then, the claim petition cannot be rejected on the basis of the recitals of F.I.R. It is also apparent that the eye witness/injured witness PW-1 has not been confronted in cross- examination by the Insurance Company regarding false involvement of tractor No.UP-79-M-7951 and further, neither any evidence has been led by the owner and driver of the tractor No.UP-79-M-7951 to prove that this vehicle was not involved in the accident nor they have appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. In view of the above evidence on record, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was indeed caused by Sonalika tractor No.UP-79-M-7951, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time of accident.

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

14. In view of aforesaid facts, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal, insofar as the issue of factum of accident and negligence of offending driver of tractor is concerned.

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

16. 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 tribunal concerned, forthwith. November 26, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.)