The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani Sahoo and Others

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that at the time of the alleged accident, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in Tata Sumo Car No. UP-32-CB-0963, which met with a head on collision with TATA Max vehicle No. UP-78-DN-7754. Learned counsel submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Max vehicle but the Tribunal has fastened the whole liability on the owner of TATA Max vehicle without appreciating, that it was a case of composite negligence. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should not have fastened the entire liability on the owner of the TATA Max vehicle.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that injured witness Gaurav Shukla was travelling in Tata Sumo vehicle, who was examined as PW-2 before the Tribunal, duly proved that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of TATA Max vehicle and as such, the Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the whole liability on the owner of TATA Max vehicle. 2 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025

4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence on record.

5. 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 3 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025 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 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) 4 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025

6. 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)

7. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that accident occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Max vehicle No. UP-78-DN-7754. The accident occurred when the above vehicle came to the wrong side of the road and hit the Tata Sumo vehicle headon. PW-2 was at that time travelling in the above Tata Sumo vehicle, who was also grievously injured in the accident. In view of the above ocular testimony of the injured witness PW-2, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of TATA Max vehicle.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in this case, no investigation was conducted by the police and also no charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle.

9. Since, the injured witness PW-2 was examined before the Tribunal, as such, even if no charge sheet was submitted against the offending driver even then, it cannot be said that the accident was not caused by the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The evidence in a criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle only corroborates the evidence in a MAC case. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ranjeet(supra), even if no eyewitness is examined before the Tribunal, even then the negligence can be established on the basis of charge sheet submitted in a criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, injured eye-witness PW-2 has duly proved the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending TATA MAX vehicle as such, non filing of the charge sheet in the criminal case is inconsequential.

10. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable to be 5 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025 dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

12. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

13. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 7, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.) JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that at the time of the alleged accident, the deceased was travelling as a passenger in Tata Sumo Car No. UP-32-CB-0963, which met with a head on collision with TATA Max vehicle No. UP-78-DN-7754. Learned counsel submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of TATA Sumo vehicle. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of Tata Max vehicle but the Tribunal has fastened the whole liability on the owner of TATA Max vehicle without appreciating, that it was a case of composite negligence. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal should not have fastened the entire liability on the owner of the TATA Max vehicle.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that injured witness Gaurav Shukla was travelling in Tata Sumo vehicle, who was examined as PW-2 before the Tribunal, duly proved that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of TATA Max vehicle and as such, the Tribunal has not committed any error in fastening the whole liability on the owner of TATA Max vehicle. 2 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025

4. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the evidence on record.

5. 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 3 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025 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 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) 4 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025

6. 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)

7. The Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that accident occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Max vehicle No. UP-78-DN-7754. The accident occurred when the above vehicle came to the wrong side of the road and hit the Tata Sumo vehicle headon. PW-2 was at that time travelling in the above Tata Sumo vehicle, who was also grievously injured in the accident. In view of the above ocular testimony of the injured witness PW-2, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of TATA Max vehicle.

8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in this case, no investigation was conducted by the police and also no charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle.

9. Since, the injured witness PW-2 was examined before the Tribunal, as such, even if no charge sheet was submitted against the offending driver even then, it cannot be said that the accident was not caused by the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The evidence in a criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle only corroborates the evidence in a MAC case. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ranjeet(supra), even if no eyewitness is examined before the Tribunal, even then the negligence can be established on the basis of charge sheet submitted in a criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, injured eye-witness PW-2 has duly proved the accident and negligence of the driver of the offending TATA MAX vehicle as such, non filing of the charge sheet in the criminal case is inconsequential.

10. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and is liable to be 5 FAFO No. 2304 of 2025 dismissed at the admission stage.

11. The appeal is hereby dismissed at the admission stage.

12. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

13. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 7, 2025 Jitendra (Sandeep Jain,J.) JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad