Maneeta Kumari and others v. Pramod Kumar Singh and others), whereby for the untimely death of Faagu Uraav in

Shreesh Srivastava : : Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Award dated 21.06.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 59/2016 (Maneeta Kumari and others v. Pramod Kumar Singh and others), whereby for the untimely death of Faagu Uraav in an accident which occurred on 22.06.2015, a compensation of Rs. 10,92,700/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle/ tractor no. UP-53-AS-0152 has been ordered to indemnify the above award.

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the deceased Faagu Uraav was trying to climb on the offending tractor on the date of the alleged accident and he fell down in the process, in which there was no negligence of the driver of the offending tractor. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes for only the driver, as such, the deceased had no right to travel as a gratituous passenger on the tractor. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has misappreciated the evidence by concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record. 2 FAFO No. 2314 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 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 3 FAFO No. 2314 of 2025

Shreesh Srivastava : : Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the Judgment and Award dated 21.06.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 59/2016 (Maneeta Kumari and others v. Pramod Kumar Singh and others), whereby for the untimely death of Faagu Uraav in an accident which occurred on 22.06.2015, a compensation of Rs. 10,92,700/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants being the legal heirs of the deceased and the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle/ tractor no. UP-53-AS-0152 has been ordered to indemnify the above award.

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the deceased Faagu Uraav was trying to climb on the offending tractor on the date of the alleged accident and he fell down in the process, in which there was no negligence of the driver of the offending tractor. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the tractor was insured for agricultural purposes for only the driver, as such, the deceased had no right to travel as a gratituous passenger on the tractor. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has misappreciated the evidence by concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record. 2 FAFO No. 2314 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 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 3 FAFO No. 2314 of 2025