Nand Lal Maurya v. Director General of Police

counsel for the appellant, is that an accident is said to have occurred on 21.09.2007 when the claimant was riding pillion on a motorcycle and met with an accident with a police jeep which rendered in he being severely injured and being hospitalized from 21.09.2007 till

17.10.2007 in King Georges Medical University, Lucknow.

4. After lodging of a first information report on 12.01.2009, which has been indicated to be lodged only after an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. being filed, the claimant filed the aforesaid claim application before the learned Tribunal praying for being awarded compensation for the various injuries and pain that he had suffered.

5. The learned vide award impugned dated 01.10.2011 has awarded a sum of Rs.73,000/-.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

7. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation, the claimants have filed cross objections.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal would indicate that it was a case of no evidence inasmuch as the driver of the police jeep had appeared as a witness before the learned Tribunal and had categorically deposed that no accident took place from his vehicle.

9. On the other hand, the claimant did not produce the driver of the motorcycle on which he was driving pillion and also failed to lead any credible evidence in support of the accident with the exception of he having been hospitalized pertaining to his injuries but the learned Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of preponderance of probability and by also holding that once it is a vehicle involving the police as such the claim application must have been filed after much difficulty inasmuch no one wants to proceed against the police authorities and thereafter awarded compensation.

10. The argument is that once no evidence was led by the claimant before the learned Tribunal to indicate the very factum of the accident and he did not even produce the main witness who could have deposed regarding the accident which was the driver of the motorcycle as such there cannot be any occasion for the learned Tribunal to have proceeded even on the basis of preponderance of probability in awarding the aforesaid amount.

11. On the other hand, the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal by contending that under various heads, the learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation.

12. So far as non-production of the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding pillion, it is contended that as the said person was also severely injured as such he could not be produced before the learned Tribunal for the purpose of his evidence which has also been considered by the learned Tribunal in the award impugned.

13. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

14. From perusal of the records, it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 21.09.2007 in which the claimant/respondent herein who was riding pillion was severely injured. The vehicle allegedly involved in the said accident was a police jeep.

15. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.01.2009. Upon filing of the claim application, the driver of the vehicle, on which the claimant was riding pillion, was not produced before the learned Tribunal as a witness although he would have been the best witness particularly considering that the driver of the police jeep denied any accident having taken place. However, the learned Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of preponderance of probability to hold that an accident had taken place. As regards specific evidence, it has been indicated that as it is with much difficulty that a person files a case against the police, therefore the incident must be true and therefore has awarded the aforesaid amount.

16. Merely because a claim application had been filed against the police the same cannot be considered to be a valid ground for the claimant to not produce adequate evidence before the learned Tribunal in order to prove his case. No doubt the cases before the learned Tribunal are to proceed on the basis of preponderance of probability as per the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments but the fact of the matter would remain that the claimant would have to lead some credible evidence for the purpose of proving his claim application which incidentally has not been produced. This has been considered in a very cavalier manner by the learned Tribunal by solely basing its order on the ground that because the police are involved as such the claimant would not be able to have substantial evidence for as per the general knowledge it is difficult to proceed against the police authorities in the matter.

17. At the same time considering that the learned Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of preponderance of probability and the injuries have been sustained by the claimant as duly indicated before the learned Tribunal along with expenses that had been incurred by the claimant for his treatment as such balancing the convenience between the parties more particularly when the accident pertains to the year 2007 and the award as passed by the learned Tribunal is of the year 2011 and the appeal has also been pending for consideration before this Court since last 13 years and even the awarded amount is now less that the statutorily prescribed amount as per the provisions of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 although the said amendment has only been introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2022 as such in the view of the Court no interference is required in the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

18. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the cross objection are dismissed.

19. Statutory amount, if any, deposited before this Court be remitted to the learned Tribunal.

20. Learned trial court record be returned as per procedure. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

counsel for the appellant, is that an accident is said to have occurred on 21.09.2007 when the claimant was riding pillion on a motorcycle and met with an accident with a police jeep which rendered in he being severely injured and being hospitalized from 21.09.2007 till

17.10.2007 in King Georges Medical University, Lucknow.

4. After lodging of a first information report on 12.01.2009, which has been indicated to be lodged only after an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. being filed, the claimant filed the aforesaid claim application before the learned Tribunal praying for being awarded compensation for the various injuries and pain that he had suffered.

5. The learned vide award impugned dated 01.10.2011 has awarded a sum of Rs.73,000/-.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.

7. Being aggrieved with the amount of compensation, the claimants have filed cross objections.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a perusal of the award passed by the learned Tribunal would indicate that it was a case of no evidence inasmuch as the driver of the police jeep had appeared as a witness before the learned Tribunal and had categorically deposed that no accident took place from his vehicle.

9. On the other hand, the claimant did not produce the driver of the motorcycle on which he was driving pillion and also failed to lead any credible evidence in support of the accident with the exception of he having been hospitalized pertaining to his injuries but the learned Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of preponderance of probability and by also holding that once it is a vehicle involving the police as such the claim application must have been filed after much difficulty inasmuch no one wants to proceed against the police authorities and thereafter awarded compensation.

10. The argument is that once no evidence was led by the claimant before the learned Tribunal to indicate the very factum of the accident and he did not even produce the main witness who could have deposed regarding the accident which was the driver of the motorcycle as such there cannot be any occasion for the learned Tribunal to have proceeded even on the basis of preponderance of probability in awarding the aforesaid amount.

11. On the other hand, the claimant has prayed for enhancement of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal by contending that under various heads, the learned Tribunal has failed to award compensation.

12. So far as non-production of the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding pillion, it is contended that as the said person was also severely injured as such he could not be produced before the learned Tribunal for the purpose of his evidence which has also been considered by the learned Tribunal in the award impugned.

13. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

14. From perusal of the records, it emerges that an accident is said to have occurred on 21.09.2007 in which the claimant/respondent herein who was riding pillion was severely injured. The vehicle allegedly involved in the said accident was a police jeep.

15. The F.I.R. has been lodged on 12.01.2009. Upon filing of the claim application, the driver of the vehicle, on which the claimant was riding pillion, was not produced before the learned Tribunal as a witness although he would have been the best witness particularly considering that the driver of the police jeep denied any accident having taken place. However, the learned Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of preponderance of probability to hold that an accident had taken place. As regards specific evidence, it has been indicated that as it is with much difficulty that a person files a case against the police, therefore the incident must be true and therefore has awarded the aforesaid amount.

16. Merely because a claim application had been filed against the police the same cannot be considered to be a valid ground for the claimant to not produce adequate evidence before the learned Tribunal in order to prove his case. No doubt the cases before the learned Tribunal are to proceed on the basis of preponderance of probability as per the settled proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments but the fact of the matter would remain that the claimant would have to lead some credible evidence for the purpose of proving his claim application which incidentally has not been produced. This has been considered in a very cavalier manner by the learned Tribunal by solely basing its order on the ground that because the police are involved as such the claimant would not be able to have substantial evidence for as per the general knowledge it is difficult to proceed against the police authorities in the matter.

17. At the same time considering that the learned Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of preponderance of probability and the injuries have been sustained by the claimant as duly indicated before the learned Tribunal along with expenses that had been incurred by the claimant for his treatment as such balancing the convenience between the parties more particularly when the accident pertains to the year 2007 and the award as passed by the learned Tribunal is of the year 2011 and the appeal has also been pending for consideration before this Court since last 13 years and even the awarded amount is now less that the statutorily prescribed amount as per the provisions of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 although the said amendment has only been introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2022 as such in the view of the Court no interference is required in the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

18. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the cross objection are dismissed.

19. Statutory amount, if any, deposited before this Court be remitted to the learned Tribunal.

20. Learned trial court record be returned as per procedure. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 A. Katiyar AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench