Pratap Singh and others v. Khursheed Ali and another, whereby, for the untimely death of Shashank Kumar in a

6. The FIR regarding the accident was registered on 26.10.2008, and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck.

7. The Tribunal, after perusing the documentary and oral evidence, recorded a finding that the deceased was 15% negligent in the accident, while the driver of the truck was held liable for the remaining 85% of the negligence.

8. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was unmarried, and after making a deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal determined the total compensation payable as Rs.1,87,425/-. Interest was awarded at the rate of 6% per annum, and the compensation along with interest was directed to be paid by the insurer of the truck. Since the owner failed to file the permit of the truck, the Tribunal directed that the Insurance Company after paying the compensation, can recover it from the owner of the truck under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in accordance with law.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the deceased was walking in the middle of the road, the accident occurred solely due to his own negligence, and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding only 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. 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 3 FAFO No. 684 of 2012 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 4 FAFO No. 684 of 2012 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 looking into such documents the aforesaid purpose 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)

12. 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)

13. From the evidence of PW-2, Saket Kumar, it is evident that at the time of the accident, the deceased was walking when the offending truck came from 5 FAFO No. 684 of 2012 behind and hit him, causing serious injuries.

14. It is also apparent that the truck driver fled from the spot after abandoning the truck, and the deceased died on the way to the hospital.

15. It is evident that the owner of the offending truck has admitted the occurrence of the accident in his written statement; however, neither the owner nor the driver appeared in the witness box to contradict the version of the claimants. After investigation, a charge sheet was also submitted against the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal opined after appreciating evidence of PW-2 that the deceased was walking on the left side of the divider and the truck came from behind and hit the deceased from the left side, which shows some negligence on the part of the deceased, and due to this, the Tribunal concluded that there was only 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident.

16. It is evident that the truck hit the deceased from behind; as such, the above finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse.

17. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal insofar as the quantum of contributory negligence is concerned, warrants no interference by this Court. No other point was pressed by learned counsel of the appellant-Insurance Company.

18. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed.

19. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

20. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2011 of the Tribunal is affirmed.

21. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

22. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. October 8, 2025 Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.) MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

6. The FIR regarding the accident was registered on 26.10.2008, and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck.

7. The Tribunal, after perusing the documentary and oral evidence, recorded a finding that the deceased was 15% negligent in the accident, while the driver of the truck was held liable for the remaining 85% of the negligence.

8. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was unmarried, and after making a deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal determined the total compensation payable as Rs.1,87,425/-. Interest was awarded at the rate of 6% per annum, and the compensation along with interest was directed to be paid by the insurer of the truck. Since the owner failed to file the permit of the truck, the Tribunal directed that the Insurance Company after paying the compensation, can recover it from the owner of the truck under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in accordance with law.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the deceased was walking in the middle of the road, the accident occurred solely due to his own negligence, and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending truck. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding only 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. 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 3 FAFO No. 684 of 2012 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 4 FAFO No. 684 of 2012 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 looking into such documents the aforesaid purpose 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)

12. 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)

13. From the evidence of PW-2, Saket Kumar, it is evident that at the time of the accident, the deceased was walking when the offending truck came from 5 FAFO No. 684 of 2012 behind and hit him, causing serious injuries.

14. It is also apparent that the truck driver fled from the spot after abandoning the truck, and the deceased died on the way to the hospital.

15. It is evident that the owner of the offending truck has admitted the occurrence of the accident in his written statement; however, neither the owner nor the driver appeared in the witness box to contradict the version of the claimants. After investigation, a charge sheet was also submitted against the driver of the offending truck. The Tribunal opined after appreciating evidence of PW-2 that the deceased was walking on the left side of the divider and the truck came from behind and hit the deceased from the left side, which shows some negligence on the part of the deceased, and due to this, the Tribunal concluded that there was only 15% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident.

16. It is evident that the truck hit the deceased from behind; as such, the above finding recorded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse.

17. Accordingly, the finding of the Tribunal insofar as the quantum of contributory negligence is concerned, warrants no interference by this Court. No other point was pressed by learned counsel of the appellant-Insurance Company.

18. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed.

19. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

20. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.11.2011 of the Tribunal is affirmed.

21. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith.

22. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. October 8, 2025 Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.) MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad