Smt. Ranjana Sahni and another v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Amroha and others), whereby for the untimely dea

: Akhilesh Sharan 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 insurer of offending Truck No.UP-23-AT-2276 against the judgment and award dated 11.07.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amroha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 13 of 2023 (Smt. Ranjana Sahni and another vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Amroha and others), whereby for the untimely death of Sunil Kumar Sahni in an accident that occurred on 13.12.2022, the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 14,65,533/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. Factual matrix is that on 13.12.2022 at about 7:30 P.M., the deceased was returning home from Moradabad driving Motorcycle No. UP-23-N-2001, and when he reached the bypass through a cut on Sambhal Road, then the above motorcycle was hit by Truck No. UP-23-AT-2276, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, resulting in serious injuries to Sunil Kumar Sahni, who died on the spot. His motorcycle was also damaged. The driver of the offending truck fled from the spot after abandoning the truck. The FIR regarding the accident was registered on 16.12.2022 at 14:56 hours at P.S. Mainather, District Moradabad, being Case Crime No. 376 of 2022, in which after investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck, Mohd. Hasan, under section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. The deceased was aged about 63 years at the time of the accident and was a business man, who was earning about Rs. 40,000 per month, but the Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of the income tax returns submitted by him for the financial years, 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18, 2020–21 and 2021–22 at Rs. 2,99,042.80 being the average annual income. The Tribunal made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 7, awarded consortium of Rs. 40,000/-, Loss of Estate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- toward funeral expenses, has awarded a compensation of Rs.14,65,533/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7% annum to be indemnified by the insurer of the above vehicle. 2 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the FIR regarding the accident was lodged belatedly, as such, the accident was doubtful. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the site-plan, the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased, who was driving Motorcycle No. UP23N2001 at the time of the accident, but the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating it and concluding that the driver of the offending truck was solely negligent for the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that from the site-plan, it is evident that the deceased came from the side road driving his motorcycle carelessly, on the main road and then his motorcycle was hit by the offending truck, in which there was no negligence of the truck driver. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, perused the 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, 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 3 FAFO No. 2414 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 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 impermissible or inadmissible. the aforesaid purpose into such documents looking 4 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

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)

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 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 5 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025 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 circumstances, the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." the authenticity of

8. The Apex Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 166, held as under:- “20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.

20.6. The post-mortem report, Ext. A-5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal as his stomach was half-full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit. The aforesaid evidence, Ext. A-5 clearly suggests that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that 6 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025 the deceased was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The mere suspicion based on Ext. B-2 “scene mahazar” and Ext. A-5 post-mortem report cannot take the place of evidence, particularly, when like PW 3 (independent eyewitness), Ext. A-1 (FIR), Ext. A-4 (charge-sheet) and Ext. B-1 (FI statement) are on record.” the direct evidence

9. The Apex Court in the case of Prabhavati & Ors. vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, held as under:- “10. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar, came to the conclusion that there wasn't any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle.

11. Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma(supra) where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 539. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.”

10. From the first information report, it is evident that it was registered three days after the accident on 16.12.2022 against the unknown driver of Truck No. UP23AT2276. The FIR discloses that at the time of the accident, the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was coming from Pakbada, which hit the motorcycle of the deceased causing his instantaneous death. The FIR also records that the motorcycle of the deceased was damaged and the truck driver fled from the spot. It also discloses that the first informant was in Gandhinagar, Gujarat at the time of the accident, as such, the FIR could not be registered promptly. 7 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

11. It is apparent that sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR has been furnished, as such, it cannot be said that the FIR has been deliberately lodged belatedly in this case.

12. It is apparent from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila (supra) and Prabhavati (supra) that on the basis of site-plan, it cannot be inferred that a particular accident occurred in a particular manner, and on the basis of site-plan, it cannot be presumed that any particular vehicle was solely negligent for the accident. It is to be proved before the Tribunal by adducing cogent evidence that a particular person was negligent for the accident.

13. In the instant case, the claimants have examined Smt. Ranjana Sahni as PW-1 and Sudesh Kumar as PW-2. PW-1 has accepted that she was not an eye witness of the accident. PW-2 deposed that at the time of the accident, the deceased's motorcycle was stationary, who was waiting to cross the road then it was hit by the offending truck, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. PW-2 disclosed that at the time of the accident, the deceased was standing at the side of the road, when the accident occurred and the truck driver fled after the accident, abandoning the truck. It was further deposed by this eye witness that the accident did not occur in the middle of the road, but the truck hit the stationary motorcycle.

14. From the evidence of PW-2, it is not proved that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle. The owner and driver of the offending truck have not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. After investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck, Mohd. Hasan, under section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, as such, on the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. Merely on the basis of the site-plan, it cannot be presumed that the accident took place in the middle of the road due to the negligence of the deceased in driving the motorcycle.

15. No other issue was pressed by learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

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

17. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

18. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 11.07.2025 is affirmed. 8 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

19. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 15, 2025 Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.) MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

: Akhilesh Sharan 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 insurer of offending Truck No.UP-23-AT-2276 against the judgment and award dated 11.07.2025 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amroha in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 13 of 2023 (Smt. Ranjana Sahni and another vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Amroha and others), whereby for the untimely death of Sunil Kumar Sahni in an accident that occurred on 13.12.2022, the claimants have been awarded compensation of Rs. 14,65,533/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. Factual matrix is that on 13.12.2022 at about 7:30 P.M., the deceased was returning home from Moradabad driving Motorcycle No. UP-23-N-2001, and when he reached the bypass through a cut on Sambhal Road, then the above motorcycle was hit by Truck No. UP-23-AT-2276, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, resulting in serious injuries to Sunil Kumar Sahni, who died on the spot. His motorcycle was also damaged. The driver of the offending truck fled from the spot after abandoning the truck. The FIR regarding the accident was registered on 16.12.2022 at 14:56 hours at P.S. Mainather, District Moradabad, being Case Crime No. 376 of 2022, in which after investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck, Mohd. Hasan, under section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. The deceased was aged about 63 years at the time of the accident and was a business man, who was earning about Rs. 40,000 per month, but the Tribunal assessed his income on the basis of the income tax returns submitted by him for the financial years, 2015–16, 2016–17, 2017–18, 2020–21 and 2021–22 at Rs. 2,99,042.80 being the average annual income. The Tribunal made a deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 7, awarded consortium of Rs. 40,000/-, Loss of Estate of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- toward funeral expenses, has awarded a compensation of Rs.14,65,533/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 7% annum to be indemnified by the insurer of the above vehicle. 2 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the FIR regarding the accident was lodged belatedly, as such, the accident was doubtful. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the site-plan, the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased, who was driving Motorcycle No. UP23N2001 at the time of the accident, but the Tribunal has erred in not appreciating it and concluding that the driver of the offending truck was solely negligent for the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that from the site-plan, it is evident that the deceased came from the side road driving his motorcycle carelessly, on the main road and then his motorcycle was hit by the offending truck, in which there was no negligence of the truck driver. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, perused the 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, 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 3 FAFO No. 2414 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 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 impermissible or inadmissible. the aforesaid purpose into such documents looking 4 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

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)

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 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 5 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025 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 circumstances, the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons." the authenticity of

8. The Apex Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 166, held as under:- “20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual.

20.6. The post-mortem report, Ext. A-5 shows the condition of the deceased at the time of death. The said report reflects that the deceased had already taken meal as his stomach was half-full and contained rice, vegetables and meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of spirit. The aforesaid evidence, Ext. A-5 clearly suggests that the deceased had taken liquor but on the basis of the same, no definite finding can be given that 6 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025 the deceased was driving the car rashly and negligently at the time of accident. The mere suspicion based on Ext. B-2 “scene mahazar” and Ext. A-5 post-mortem report cannot take the place of evidence, particularly, when like PW 3 (independent eyewitness), Ext. A-1 (FIR), Ext. A-4 (charge-sheet) and Ext. B-1 (FI statement) are on record.” the direct evidence

9. The Apex Court in the case of Prabhavati & Ors. vs. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455, held as under:- “10. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court on the 25% contributory negligence of the deceased and 75% upon the driver of the bus. We find ourselves to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal on this issue. The Tribunal rightly, after considering the evidence on record and on perusal of the Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar, came to the conclusion that there wasn't any sufficient evidence on record, indicating that the accident occurred due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, and after considering the oral evidence of P.W.1, held the cause of the accident to be rash and negligent on the part only of the offending vehicle.

11. Thus, in our considered view, the contributory negligence taken by the High Court at 25% of the deceased is erroneous. We advert to the principles laid down in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma(supra) where it was held that in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it cannot be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. This exposition came to be followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh (2015) 1 SCC 539. In the present case, therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both vehicles, for having driven at high speed.”

10. From the first information report, it is evident that it was registered three days after the accident on 16.12.2022 against the unknown driver of Truck No. UP23AT2276. The FIR discloses that at the time of the accident, the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was coming from Pakbada, which hit the motorcycle of the deceased causing his instantaneous death. The FIR also records that the motorcycle of the deceased was damaged and the truck driver fled from the spot. It also discloses that the first informant was in Gandhinagar, Gujarat at the time of the accident, as such, the FIR could not be registered promptly. 7 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

11. It is apparent that sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR has been furnished, as such, it cannot be said that the FIR has been deliberately lodged belatedly in this case.

12. It is apparent from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila (supra) and Prabhavati (supra) that on the basis of site-plan, it cannot be inferred that a particular accident occurred in a particular manner, and on the basis of site-plan, it cannot be presumed that any particular vehicle was solely negligent for the accident. It is to be proved before the Tribunal by adducing cogent evidence that a particular person was negligent for the accident.

13. In the instant case, the claimants have examined Smt. Ranjana Sahni as PW-1 and Sudesh Kumar as PW-2. PW-1 has accepted that she was not an eye witness of the accident. PW-2 deposed that at the time of the accident, the deceased's motorcycle was stationary, who was waiting to cross the road then it was hit by the offending truck, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. PW-2 disclosed that at the time of the accident, the deceased was standing at the side of the road, when the accident occurred and the truck driver fled after the accident, abandoning the truck. It was further deposed by this eye witness that the accident did not occur in the middle of the road, but the truck hit the stationary motorcycle.

14. From the evidence of PW-2, it is not proved that there was any negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle. The owner and driver of the offending truck have not appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. After investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted against the driver of the offending truck, Mohd. Hasan, under section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, as such, on the basis of the above evidence, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. Merely on the basis of the site-plan, it cannot be presumed that the accident took place in the middle of the road due to the negligence of the deceased in driving the motorcycle.

15. No other issue was pressed by learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

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

17. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

18. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 11.07.2025 is affirmed. 8 FAFO No. 2414 of 2025

19. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 15, 2025 Mayank (Sandeep Jain,J.) MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad