In Re Smt Laxmi Gupta & Ors v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, whereby

4. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellants are that one Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, who was working in Hardoi as a Computer Operator, was coming to Lucknow on the intervening night of 3/4.07.2007. At about 01:45 AM a Truck having Reg No.UP30 3176 required assistance from him, upon which he stopped. Thereafter, a D.C.M. Truck No.UP30A 6772 dashed against the back side of the aforesaid Truck No.UP 30 3176, which resulted in Shri Anil Kumar Gupta being severely injured and thereafter he having died.

5. An FIR was lodged by a 3rd person regarding the said incident.

6. The claimants who are said to be the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation for the death by impleading both the Insurance Companies i.e. the Insurance Company of the D.C.M. truck and the Insurance Company of the truck which had stopped for repairs.

7. Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant clarifies that initially it was only the Insurance Company of the truck which was standing for repairs that had been impleaded as a party and thereafter the claimants have impleaded the Insurance Company of the D.C.M. truck as well as the owner of the D.C.M. truck as a party which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal. Both the Insurance Companies contested the matter.

8. The sheet-anchor of the Insurance Company of the D.C.M. truck- appellant herein is that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there was negligence on the part of the Truck which stood at the side of the road for repairs without any parking lights etc., which resulted in the D.C.M. truck not noticing the parked vehicle and having dashed in the aforesaid truck from the back which resulted in the serious injuries to Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and ultimately in his death. It is also indicated that no accident has been caused by the D.C.M. truck rather the death of the victim had occurred on account of truck standing for repairs having run over the deceased and consequently it is urged that no liability could be apportioned on the appellant Insurance Company and if at all some liability is to be affixed, it can only be composite.

9. However, the learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, without considering all aspects of the matter has awarded the compensation against the appellant herein and hence the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the award passed by the learned Tribunal has argued on the following grounds:- (a) that from the FIR which has been lodged pertaining to the said accident it emerges that the deceased was sitting inside the Truck and thus he would fall within the ambit of being a gratuitous passenger and thus there cannot be any liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount of award; (b) that as the Truck which had stopped on the road side was parked without any back light or any signs to indicate that it was standing at the side of the road consequently in case the D.C.M. truck dashed against it from the back side no liability can be apportioned on the Insurance Company with which the D.C.M. truck was insured; and (c) that the Truck did not have any hand brake, which could have prevented the said accident.

11. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

12. On the other hand, Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has supported the award as passed by the learned Tribunal.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. From perusal of the record an accident is said to have taken place on intervening night of 3/4.07.2007 at around 1:45 AM when Shri Anil Kumar Gupta who is said to be on the motorcycle and was coming to Lucknow stopped upon being asked to do so for the purpose of helping out a truck which was standing on the road side. Another D.C.M. truck No.UP30A 6772 dashed against the parked truck from the back which resulted in the parked truck moving forward and crushing Shri Anil Kumar Gupta resulting in he receiving serious injuries and thereafter having died. An FIR has been lodged regarding the said incident. Upon filing a claim application, learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.13,54,780/- in favour of the claimants against the Insurance Company with which D.C.M. Truck was insured. Being aggrieved the appellant Insurance Company is before this Court.

15. Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued on the aforesaid grounds, which the Court now proceeds to consider.

16. First ground of argument is that from the FIR which has been lodged pertaining to the said accident it emerges that the deceased was sitting inside the Truck and thus he would fall within the ambit of being a gratuitous passenger and thus there cannot be any liability of the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

17. In support thereof, Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the FIR which is Paper No.C6/1. Perusal of the FIR would indicate that the FIR had been lodged by one Shri Charan Das. Learned Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter by holding that Charan Das is a 3rd party and merely because something is recorded in the FIR lodged by a 3rd party the same would not resile from the fact that an accident in fact had occurred which resulted in the death of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta. Thus the aforesaid ground is rejected.

18. So far as grounds (b) & (c) is concerned that as the Truck which had stopped on the road side was parked without any back light or any signs to indicate that it was standing at the side of the road consequently in case the D.C.M. truck dashed against it from the back side no liability can be apportioned on the Insurance Company with which the D.C.M. truck was insured is concerned, and had the truck put a hand brake, the accident would not have occurred, the said grounds are also found to be patently fallacious and misconceived. The reason is that although these grounds were raised in the arguments before the learned Tribunal as finds place in the judgment of the learned Tribunal (internal Page-6) yet the learned Tribunal has specifically held that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove that the truck standing on the road side namely UP30 3176 had violated the rules in any manner.

19. The learned Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Corporation Ltd., vs Suneeta Yadav : 2008 ACJ 745 to hold that the Court has held that in case a jeep is standing on a road side and truck hits it, then the negligence would be on the part of the truck driver. Thus the aforesaid ground as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected.

20. Even otherwise, perusal of the statement of independent witness namely Shri Rajat s/o Shri Hridaya Nath, who was also cross examined would indicate that he has deposed about the said accident and the D.C.M. truck being driven carelessly and negligently and having dashed against the truck which was standing on the side of the road.

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The appeal stands dismissed.

22. Let trial court record be returned. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 prateek PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the appellants are that one Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, who was working in Hardoi as a Computer Operator, was coming to Lucknow on the intervening night of 3/4.07.2007. At about 01:45 AM a Truck having Reg No.UP30 3176 required assistance from him, upon which he stopped. Thereafter, a D.C.M. Truck No.UP30A 6772 dashed against the back side of the aforesaid Truck No.UP 30 3176, which resulted in Shri Anil Kumar Gupta being severely injured and thereafter he having died.

5. An FIR was lodged by a 3rd person regarding the said incident.

6. The claimants who are said to be the wife, daughter and parents of the deceased filed a claim application before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation for the death by impleading both the Insurance Companies i.e. the Insurance Company of the D.C.M. truck and the Insurance Company of the truck which had stopped for repairs.

7. Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant clarifies that initially it was only the Insurance Company of the truck which was standing for repairs that had been impleaded as a party and thereafter the claimants have impleaded the Insurance Company of the D.C.M. truck as well as the owner of the D.C.M. truck as a party which has been allowed by the learned Tribunal. Both the Insurance Companies contested the matter.

8. The sheet-anchor of the Insurance Company of the D.C.M. truck- appellant herein is that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that there was negligence on the part of the Truck which stood at the side of the road for repairs without any parking lights etc., which resulted in the D.C.M. truck not noticing the parked vehicle and having dashed in the aforesaid truck from the back which resulted in the serious injuries to Shri Anil Kumar Gupta and ultimately in his death. It is also indicated that no accident has been caused by the D.C.M. truck rather the death of the victim had occurred on account of truck standing for repairs having run over the deceased and consequently it is urged that no liability could be apportioned on the appellant Insurance Company and if at all some liability is to be affixed, it can only be composite.

9. However, the learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, without considering all aspects of the matter has awarded the compensation against the appellant herein and hence the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant while raising a challenge to the award passed by the learned Tribunal has argued on the following grounds:- (a) that from the FIR which has been lodged pertaining to the said accident it emerges that the deceased was sitting inside the Truck and thus he would fall within the ambit of being a gratuitous passenger and thus there cannot be any liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount of award; (b) that as the Truck which had stopped on the road side was parked without any back light or any signs to indicate that it was standing at the side of the road consequently in case the D.C.M. truck dashed against it from the back side no liability can be apportioned on the Insurance Company with which the D.C.M. truck was insured; and (c) that the Truck did not have any hand brake, which could have prevented the said accident.

11. No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

12. On the other hand, Shri Satyajit Banerji, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has supported the award as passed by the learned Tribunal.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. From perusal of the record an accident is said to have taken place on intervening night of 3/4.07.2007 at around 1:45 AM when Shri Anil Kumar Gupta who is said to be on the motorcycle and was coming to Lucknow stopped upon being asked to do so for the purpose of helping out a truck which was standing on the road side. Another D.C.M. truck No.UP30A 6772 dashed against the parked truck from the back which resulted in the parked truck moving forward and crushing Shri Anil Kumar Gupta resulting in he receiving serious injuries and thereafter having died. An FIR has been lodged regarding the said incident. Upon filing a claim application, learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.13,54,780/- in favour of the claimants against the Insurance Company with which D.C.M. Truck was insured. Being aggrieved the appellant Insurance Company is before this Court.

15. Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued on the aforesaid grounds, which the Court now proceeds to consider.

16. First ground of argument is that from the FIR which has been lodged pertaining to the said accident it emerges that the deceased was sitting inside the Truck and thus he would fall within the ambit of being a gratuitous passenger and thus there cannot be any liability of the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

17. In support thereof, Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the FIR which is Paper No.C6/1. Perusal of the FIR would indicate that the FIR had been lodged by one Shri Charan Das. Learned Tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter by holding that Charan Das is a 3rd party and merely because something is recorded in the FIR lodged by a 3rd party the same would not resile from the fact that an accident in fact had occurred which resulted in the death of Shri Anil Kumar Gupta. Thus the aforesaid ground is rejected.

18. So far as grounds (b) & (c) is concerned that as the Truck which had stopped on the road side was parked without any back light or any signs to indicate that it was standing at the side of the road consequently in case the D.C.M. truck dashed against it from the back side no liability can be apportioned on the Insurance Company with which the D.C.M. truck was insured is concerned, and had the truck put a hand brake, the accident would not have occurred, the said grounds are also found to be patently fallacious and misconceived. The reason is that although these grounds were raised in the arguments before the learned Tribunal as finds place in the judgment of the learned Tribunal (internal Page-6) yet the learned Tribunal has specifically held that no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company to prove that the truck standing on the road side namely UP30 3176 had violated the rules in any manner.

19. The learned Tribunal has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of National Insurance Corporation Ltd., vs Suneeta Yadav : 2008 ACJ 745 to hold that the Court has held that in case a jeep is standing on a road side and truck hits it, then the negligence would be on the part of the truck driver. Thus the aforesaid ground as raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is also rejected.

20. Even otherwise, perusal of the statement of independent witness namely Shri Rajat s/o Shri Hridaya Nath, who was also cross examined would indicate that he has deposed about the said accident and the D.C.M. truck being driven carelessly and negligently and having dashed against the truck which was standing on the side of the road.

21. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The appeal stands dismissed.

22. Let trial court record be returned. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 prateek PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench