Smt. Rajni Devi Ors v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Another), whereby compensation of Rs

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Firozabad in M.A.C. No.14 of 2024 (Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another), whereby compensation of Rs.31,83,039/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to claimants for the untimely death of Praveen Kumar due to injuries suffered in an accident which occurred on

01.12.2023, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending car.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 01.12.2023 at about 06:00 PM the deceased(Praveen Kumar) was driving a Motorcycle No. UP-83-AQ-7564 on which his uncle Virendra Kumar Rawat was travelling as pillion rider, then on Tundla-Etah road near Prakash Dhaba, it was hit by a car No. UP- 83-AC-9951 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, causing serious injuries to Praveen Kumar and Virendra Kumar Rawat. The injured Praveen Kumar was taken to the Geetanjali Hospital, Agra where he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. An FIR regarding the accident was registered by the brother of the deceased Susheel Kumar at police Station Pachokara, District Firozabad, on 10.12.2023 which was registered as Case Crime No.281 of 2023 under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC against the unknown driver of the offending vehicle in which after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against Vijay Yadav, the owner-cum-driver of the offending car. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was employed as a driver in S.N. Sharma Cold Storage, and was drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month but the tribunal assessed his age as 36 years, his income as Rs.15,000/- per month, awarded future prospect of 40%, applied multiplier of 15, deducted 1/4th towards self expenses, awarded 2 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, awarded Rs.40,000/- consortium to each claimant. In this way, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.31,83,039/- alongwith 7% interest per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending car.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that there is contradiction between the testimony of eye witness/injured witness PW-2 Virendra Kumar Rawat, which makes the whole claim doubtful. He further submitted that there is also a delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the claim petition, the car hit the motorcycle from behind but in the cross examination of PW-2, it is proved that at the time of the accident the motorcycle was stationary. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of this, the testimony of PW-2 was unreliable. Further no independent witness was examined to prove the factum of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and be decided on merits.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused impugned judgment and the documents submitted by the appellant with the appeal.

5. The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajani Sahoo and Others (2025) 2 SCC 599, 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 3 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 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 the petition seeking doubt cannot be applied while considering 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 impermissible or inadmissible. the aforesaid purpose into such documents looking

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 4 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 death of Udayanath Sahoo." (emphasis supplied)

6. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, 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 Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in registering FIR in motor accident cases, held as under:- "17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.

18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.

19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such 5 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 circumstances, significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." the FIR assumes much more the authenticity of

8. According to the claim petition, the deceased was driving motorcycle No. UP-83-AQ-7564 at the time of the accident, on which his uncle Virendra Kumar Rawat, who has been examined as PW-2, was sitting as pillion rider, then at about 06:00 PM, the motorcycle was hit by a car No. UP-83-AC-9951 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, causing serious injuries to the Praveen Kumar and Virendra Kumar Rawat and subsequently, due to the injuries suffered in the accident, Praveen Kumar died. The postmortem report of the deceased was submitted before the tribunal. It is true that the FIR was registered against the unknown driver of the above offending car in which after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against Vijay Yadav, owner-cum-driver of the offending car.

9. From the evidence of injured eye witness PW-2, it is evident that at the time of the accident, motorcycle was stationary, when it was hit from behind by the offending car No. UP-83-AC-9951, due to which the deceased fell and sustained injuries. The claimants have submitted an explanation regarding delay in registering the FIR, stating that they were busy in performing the last rites of the deceased, as such, could not register the FIR promptly, which has been accepted by the tribunal. As such, the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained and only on the ground of delay, it cannot be said that the accident was doubtful.

10. It is apparent that the owner-cum-driver and the insurance company have not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim and adduce any evidence to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. After investigation, a charge sheet has also been submitted against the driver of the offending car, as such, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Since PW-2 is an injured witness, as such, his evidence cannot be brushed aside and tribunal has rightly relied on his evidence.

11. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

12. There is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the tribunal insofar as the factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car is concerned.

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

14. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. 6 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025

15. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is affirmed.

16. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith, if not already remitted. October 15, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.) HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Firozabad in M.A.C. No.14 of 2024 (Smt. Rajni Devi & Ors. vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Another), whereby compensation of Rs.31,83,039/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to claimants for the untimely death of Praveen Kumar due to injuries suffered in an accident which occurred on

01.12.2023, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending car.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that on 01.12.2023 at about 06:00 PM the deceased(Praveen Kumar) was driving a Motorcycle No. UP-83-AQ-7564 on which his uncle Virendra Kumar Rawat was travelling as pillion rider, then on Tundla-Etah road near Prakash Dhaba, it was hit by a car No. UP- 83-AC-9951 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, causing serious injuries to Praveen Kumar and Virendra Kumar Rawat. The injured Praveen Kumar was taken to the Geetanjali Hospital, Agra where he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. An FIR regarding the accident was registered by the brother of the deceased Susheel Kumar at police Station Pachokara, District Firozabad, on 10.12.2023 which was registered as Case Crime No.281 of 2023 under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC against the unknown driver of the offending vehicle in which after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against Vijay Yadav, the owner-cum-driver of the offending car. The deceased was aged about 30 years and was employed as a driver in S.N. Sharma Cold Storage, and was drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month but the tribunal assessed his age as 36 years, his income as Rs.15,000/- per month, awarded future prospect of 40%, applied multiplier of 15, deducted 1/4th towards self expenses, awarded 2 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 Rs.15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses, awarded Rs.40,000/- consortium to each claimant. In this way, the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.31,83,039/- alongwith 7% interest per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending car.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that there is contradiction between the testimony of eye witness/injured witness PW-2 Virendra Kumar Rawat, which makes the whole claim doubtful. He further submitted that there is also a delay of 10 days in lodging the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the claim petition, the car hit the motorcycle from behind but in the cross examination of PW-2, it is proved that at the time of the accident the motorcycle was stationary. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of this, the testimony of PW-2 was unreliable. Further no independent witness was examined to prove the factum of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and be decided on merits.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused impugned judgment and the documents submitted by the appellant with the appeal.

5. The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajani Sahoo and Others (2025) 2 SCC 599, 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 3 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 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 the petition seeking doubt cannot be applied while considering 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 impermissible or inadmissible. the aforesaid purpose into such documents looking

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 4 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 death of Udayanath Sahoo." (emphasis supplied)

6. The Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, 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 Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in registering FIR in motor accident cases, held as under:- "17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.

18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.

19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such 5 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025 circumstances, significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." the FIR assumes much more the authenticity of

8. According to the claim petition, the deceased was driving motorcycle No. UP-83-AQ-7564 at the time of the accident, on which his uncle Virendra Kumar Rawat, who has been examined as PW-2, was sitting as pillion rider, then at about 06:00 PM, the motorcycle was hit by a car No. UP-83-AC-9951 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver, causing serious injuries to the Praveen Kumar and Virendra Kumar Rawat and subsequently, due to the injuries suffered in the accident, Praveen Kumar died. The postmortem report of the deceased was submitted before the tribunal. It is true that the FIR was registered against the unknown driver of the above offending car in which after investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against Vijay Yadav, owner-cum-driver of the offending car.

9. From the evidence of injured eye witness PW-2, it is evident that at the time of the accident, motorcycle was stationary, when it was hit from behind by the offending car No. UP-83-AC-9951, due to which the deceased fell and sustained injuries. The claimants have submitted an explanation regarding delay in registering the FIR, stating that they were busy in performing the last rites of the deceased, as such, could not register the FIR promptly, which has been accepted by the tribunal. As such, the delay in lodging the FIR has been explained and only on the ground of delay, it cannot be said that the accident was doubtful.

10. It is apparent that the owner-cum-driver and the insurance company have not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim and adduce any evidence to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the motorcycle driver. After investigation, a charge sheet has also been submitted against the driver of the offending car, as such, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Since PW-2 is an injured witness, as such, his evidence cannot be brushed aside and tribunal has rightly relied on his evidence.

11. No other issue has been pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

12. There is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the tribunal insofar as the factum of accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car is concerned.

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

14. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. 6 FAFO No. 2410 of 2025

15. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 15.07.2025 is affirmed.

16. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith, if not already remitted. October 15, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.) HIMANSHU YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad