Smt. Anshu and others v. Om Prakash others, whereby, compensation of Rs

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT- 3043 against the impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr in MACP No. 297 of 2018, Smt. Anshu and others Vs. Om Prakash & others, whereby, compensation of Rs.20,87,800/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants for the untimely death of Monu Kumar(deceased) in an accident which occurred on 26.02.2018, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. The factual matrix is that on 26.02.2018 at about 08.00 PM Monu Kumar (deceased) was returning to his village from Khurja on his motorcycle No. UP-13-R-8698, then on Khurja-Bulandshahr highway near Agarwal Fatak, his motorcycle was hit by the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries to the deceased(Monu Kumar), due to which, he died on the spot. An FIR regarding the accident was registered on 27.02.2018 in police station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr being Case Crime No.274 of 2018, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, against the unknown driver of a unknown vehicle. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was doing business of selling marble and tiles, from which he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but the tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.9,000/- per month, granted future prospect of 40%, deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 17, awarded Rs.44,000/- to the widow towards loss of consortium and Rs.40,000/- each to the two minor children of deceased as parental consortium, awarded Rs.18,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,87,800/- along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved against which, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court.

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that from the FIR, it is evident that the accident was caused by unknown vehicle. It has been further submitted that the FIR does not disclose that there was an eye witness of the accident. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Vineet Kumar, but in the charge sheet, there was no mention of any 2 FAFO No. 2449 of 2025 eye witness of the accident but the claimants have examined Mohit Kumar PW-2 as an eye witness, which is contrary to the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since PW-2 is not mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet, as such, his testimony is unreliable and on this basis, the tribunal has erred in concluding that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted 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 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. 2449 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)

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 4 FAFO No. 2449 of 2025 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 Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. vs. Mini Babu George & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883, held as under:-

16. The courts below have recorded the finding of non-involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness. In our considered view, a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation. There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non- involvement of the car in the accident. In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible. The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front bumper is curved. With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident. (emphasis supplied)

8. According to the claimants, accident took place on 26.02.2018, when Monu Kumar (deceased) was driving his motorcycle no. UP-13-R-8698, then it was hit by the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. An FIR regarding the accident was registered on 27.02.2018 at 12.32 hours in police station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr being Case Crime No.274 of 2018, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, against the unknown driver of a unknown vehicle. According to the first informant Manish Rajaura, his brother Monu Kumar died on the spot. It is apparent that after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Vineet Kumar, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. It is true that in the charge sheet, the name of an eye witness is missing but only on this basis, the testimony of an eye witness PW-2 Mohit Kumar cannot be discarded.

9. PW-2 Mohit Kumar has deposed that on 26.02.2018 at about 08.00 PM, he saw Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He deposed that he rushed to the spot of accident, where the offending vehicle had also stopped but subsequently the driver had fled. It is apparent that neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle have appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. The insurance company has also not adduced any evidence to contradict the 5 FAFO No. 2449 of 2025 claim. There is no evidence to presume that Mohit Kumar PW-2 is not an eye witness of the accident. Merely because he is not mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet, his testimony cannot be discarded.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was caused by the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Vineet Kumar.

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

12. This court has not expressed any opinion on the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

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

14. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

15. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 08.07.2025 is affirmed.

16. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 27, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT- 3043 against the impugned judgment and award dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahr in MACP No. 297 of 2018, Smt. Anshu and others Vs. Om Prakash & others, whereby, compensation of Rs.20,87,800/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants for the untimely death of Monu Kumar(deceased) in an accident which occurred on 26.02.2018, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle.

2. The factual matrix is that on 26.02.2018 at about 08.00 PM Monu Kumar (deceased) was returning to his village from Khurja on his motorcycle No. UP-13-R-8698, then on Khurja-Bulandshahr highway near Agarwal Fatak, his motorcycle was hit by the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries to the deceased(Monu Kumar), due to which, he died on the spot. An FIR regarding the accident was registered on 27.02.2018 in police station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr being Case Crime No.274 of 2018, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, against the unknown driver of a unknown vehicle. The deceased was aged about 26 years and was doing business of selling marble and tiles, from which he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month, but the tribunal has assessed his income as Rs.9,000/- per month, granted future prospect of 40%, deducted 1/4th amount towards personal expenses, applied multiplier of 17, awarded Rs.44,000/- to the widow towards loss of consortium and Rs.40,000/- each to the two minor children of deceased as parental consortium, awarded Rs.18,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. In this way, the tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.20,87,800/- along with interest @ 7 per cent per annum to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved against which, the insurance company is in appeal before this Court.

3. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted that from the FIR, it is evident that the accident was caused by unknown vehicle. It has been further submitted that the FIR does not disclose that there was an eye witness of the accident. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Vineet Kumar, but in the charge sheet, there was no mention of any 2 FAFO No. 2449 of 2025 eye witness of the accident but the claimants have examined Mohit Kumar PW-2 as an eye witness, which is contrary to the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since PW-2 is not mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet, as such, his testimony is unreliable and on this basis, the tribunal has erred in concluding that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted 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 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. 2449 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)

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 4 FAFO No. 2449 of 2025 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 Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. vs. Mini Babu George & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2883, held as under:-

16. The courts below have recorded the finding of non-involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness. In our considered view, a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation. There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non- involvement of the car in the accident. In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible. The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front bumper is curved. With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident. (emphasis supplied)

8. According to the claimants, accident took place on 26.02.2018, when Monu Kumar (deceased) was driving his motorcycle no. UP-13-R-8698, then it was hit by the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. An FIR regarding the accident was registered on 27.02.2018 at 12.32 hours in police station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr being Case Crime No.274 of 2018, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, against the unknown driver of a unknown vehicle. According to the first informant Manish Rajaura, his brother Monu Kumar died on the spot. It is apparent that after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Vineet Kumar, under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC. It is true that in the charge sheet, the name of an eye witness is missing but only on this basis, the testimony of an eye witness PW-2 Mohit Kumar cannot be discarded.

9. PW-2 Mohit Kumar has deposed that on 26.02.2018 at about 08.00 PM, he saw Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased due to which he sustained grievous injuries. He deposed that he rushed to the spot of accident, where the offending vehicle had also stopped but subsequently the driver had fled. It is apparent that neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle have appeared in the witness box to contradict the claim. The insurance company has also not adduced any evidence to contradict the 5 FAFO No. 2449 of 2025 claim. There is no evidence to presume that Mohit Kumar PW-2 is not an eye witness of the accident. Merely because he is not mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet, his testimony cannot be discarded.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the tribunal has not erred in concluding that the accident was caused by the offending Motor Cab No.UP-13-AT-3043, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver Vineet Kumar.

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

12. This court has not expressed any opinion on the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

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

14. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

15. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 08.07.2025 is affirmed.

16. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 27, 2025 Himanshu (Sandeep Jain,J.)