High Court · 2025

4. The record further indicates that Sri Salik Ram Yadav had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents but at the time of the call of the case, he is not present to argue the appeal.

5. In view of the above, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 10.12.2015, the deceased, namely Phool Chandra, was returning from the house of his in-laws to his own residence. Around 5:00 P.M., near Village Lalpur on the Lucknow-Raebareli road, the offending vehicle bearing registration no.UP 32 CJ 5144, an Indigo car, was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle being driven by Phool Chandra. He sustained grievous injuries and, during the course of treatment, succumbed to them.

7. It was also stated that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, and on that basis, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation on account of his death. In the claim petition, the owner and driver, who were impleaded as respondent nos.1 and 2, did not contest the proceedings and the matter proceeded ex parte against them on 12.10.2017. It was the Insurance Company that filed its written statement. Thereafter, upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed seven issues.

8. The parties led their evidence. On behalf of the claimants, both documentary and oral evidence were adduced. Jagannath was produced as PW-1, the wife of the deceased, namely Kalawati, was examined as PW-2 and one Sri Bipat, an alleged eyewitness, was examined as PW-3. Insofar as the respondents, including the Insurance Company, are concerned, no evidence was led.

9. The Tribunal, while considering the evidence on record, found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Indigo car bearing registration no. UP 32 CJ 5144. It also held that the said vehicle was duly insured and the driver possessed a valid and subsisting driving licence. Thereafter, it considered the quantum of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,55,200/- along with 7% interest in favour of the claimants by means of the award dated 25.10.2021. It is this award that is under challenge before this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was a discrepancy in so far as the vehicle-in-question said to be involved in the accident is concerned. It is stated that the alleged eye witness, namely, Sri Bipat, has stated in his deposition that it was an Ambassador car which was involved in the accident. However, actually the car involved was Indigo Car. It is urged that this clearly gives rise to a doubt over the occurrence which has not been appropriately considered by the tribunal. It is further urged that the Insurance Company had taken a plea that the accident had occurred as a head-on, which necessarily implies that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, however, this aspect has also not been considered by the tribunal, which has vitiated the award. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

11. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and has also perused the material on record.

12. Apparently, as a matter of fact, what is noticed is that the respondent nos.1 and 2 of the claim, i.e., the owner and driver, were set ex parte, and neither any written statement was filed nor did they appear in the witness box to lead any evidence. Insofar as the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, no person was examined on its behalf, nor was any attempt made on its behalf to summon any witness to buttress the plea as raised by them in their written statement.

13. Apparently, insofar as issue no.1 is concerned, which relates to rash and negligent driving, there is a clear statement of PW-3, Bipat, who stated that at the given time he was sipping tea at a nearby roadside tea stall. He heard a loud noise, and he went near the place from where the sound emanated and found that the accident had occurred. It was also stated that he, along with the police, had taken the injured to the hospital; thereafter, he had given the details to the doctor concerned. However, Phool Chandra, during his treatment, expired. This statement has not been controverted. The allegation and the contention of the counsel for the appellant, insofar as the brand of the vehicle involved in the accident is concerned, would reveal that even in the F.I.R., which was lodged, the car number was specifically mentioned. Mere statement of PW-3, Bipat, that the offending car was an Ambassador car, rather it was an Indigo Car, does not make any difference for the very simple reason that the car number was already mentioned, and even during the investigation, the police authorities found that the said car was involved and charge sheet was also filed insofar as the driver of the vehicle is concerned. It is the claimant who has to substantiate the foundational facts and once the factum of the accident is found to be correct, the tribunal is not required to enter into minor discrepancies which do not impact the basic fundamental regarding the occurrence of the accident.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, where clearly in the F.I.R. as well as the documents furnished by the claimants is concerned, the identity of the car was clear, hence mentioning the wrong brand of the car by the claimant witness may not impact the outcome and, thus, the suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant does not find favour with this Court.

15. As far as the second limb of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding contributory negligence is concerned, it reveals that there are no sufÏcient pleadings on this ground. Reliance has been placed upon a site plan which is said to have been filed, but it is now well settled and undisputed that, in order to arrive at a finding of contributory negligence, mere reliance upon the site plan is not a safe move. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has considered this aspect and has categorically held that a site plan cannot be the sole basis to infer contributory negligence. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, mere blind reliance on the said site plan cannot form the basis to establish a case of contributory negligence.

16. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also does not find favour with the Court. No other point has been pressed. The Court has considered the award and the findings are found to be robust and just. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is not enough material to interfere with the award dated 25.10.2021 passed in C.P. No.147 of 2016.

17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

18. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimant-respondents. Any shortfall shall also be made good by the Insurance Company within a period of sixty days so that the amount of compensation is paid to the claimant as per the award, if already not paid.

19. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 A.Dewal (Jaspreet Singh, J) ASHISH DEWAL ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

4. The record further indicates that Sri Salik Ram Yadav had put in appearance on behalf of the respondents but at the time of the call of the case, he is not present to argue the appeal.

5. In view of the above, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on 10.12.2015, the deceased, namely Phool Chandra, was returning from the house of his in-laws to his own residence. Around 5:00 P.M., near Village Lalpur on the Lucknow-Raebareli road, the offending vehicle bearing registration no.UP 32 CJ 5144, an Indigo car, was being driven rashly and negligently and hit the motorcycle being driven by Phool Chandra. He sustained grievous injuries and, during the course of treatment, succumbed to them.

7. It was also stated that he was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month, and on that basis, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation on account of his death. In the claim petition, the owner and driver, who were impleaded as respondent nos.1 and 2, did not contest the proceedings and the matter proceeded ex parte against them on 12.10.2017. It was the Insurance Company that filed its written statement. Thereafter, upon the exchange of pleadings, the Tribunal framed seven issues.

8. The parties led their evidence. On behalf of the claimants, both documentary and oral evidence were adduced. Jagannath was produced as PW-1, the wife of the deceased, namely Kalawati, was examined as PW-2 and one Sri Bipat, an alleged eyewitness, was examined as PW-3. Insofar as the respondents, including the Insurance Company, are concerned, no evidence was led.

9. The Tribunal, while considering the evidence on record, found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Indigo car bearing registration no. UP 32 CJ 5144. It also held that the said vehicle was duly insured and the driver possessed a valid and subsisting driving licence. Thereafter, it considered the quantum of compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 13,55,200/- along with 7% interest in favour of the claimants by means of the award dated 25.10.2021. It is this award that is under challenge before this Court.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was a discrepancy in so far as the vehicle-in-question said to be involved in the accident is concerned. It is stated that the alleged eye witness, namely, Sri Bipat, has stated in his deposition that it was an Ambassador car which was involved in the accident. However, actually the car involved was Indigo Car. It is urged that this clearly gives rise to a doubt over the occurrence which has not been appropriately considered by the tribunal. It is further urged that the Insurance Company had taken a plea that the accident had occurred as a head-on, which necessarily implies that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, however, this aspect has also not been considered by the tribunal, which has vitiated the award. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

11. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and has also perused the material on record.

12. Apparently, as a matter of fact, what is noticed is that the respondent nos.1 and 2 of the claim, i.e., the owner and driver, were set ex parte, and neither any written statement was filed nor did they appear in the witness box to lead any evidence. Insofar as the appellant-Insurance Company is concerned, no person was examined on its behalf, nor was any attempt made on its behalf to summon any witness to buttress the plea as raised by them in their written statement.

13. Apparently, insofar as issue no.1 is concerned, which relates to rash and negligent driving, there is a clear statement of PW-3, Bipat, who stated that at the given time he was sipping tea at a nearby roadside tea stall. He heard a loud noise, and he went near the place from where the sound emanated and found that the accident had occurred. It was also stated that he, along with the police, had taken the injured to the hospital; thereafter, he had given the details to the doctor concerned. However, Phool Chandra, during his treatment, expired. This statement has not been controverted. The allegation and the contention of the counsel for the appellant, insofar as the brand of the vehicle involved in the accident is concerned, would reveal that even in the F.I.R., which was lodged, the car number was specifically mentioned. Mere statement of PW-3, Bipat, that the offending car was an Ambassador car, rather it was an Indigo Car, does not make any difference for the very simple reason that the car number was already mentioned, and even during the investigation, the police authorities found that the said car was involved and charge sheet was also filed insofar as the driver of the vehicle is concerned. It is the claimant who has to substantiate the foundational facts and once the factum of the accident is found to be correct, the tribunal is not required to enter into minor discrepancies which do not impact the basic fundamental regarding the occurrence of the accident.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, where clearly in the F.I.R. as well as the documents furnished by the claimants is concerned, the identity of the car was clear, hence mentioning the wrong brand of the car by the claimant witness may not impact the outcome and, thus, the suggestion made by the counsel for the appellant does not find favour with this Court.

15. As far as the second limb of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding contributory negligence is concerned, it reveals that there are no sufÏcient pleadings on this ground. Reliance has been placed upon a site plan which is said to have been filed, but it is now well settled and undisputed that, in order to arrive at a finding of contributory negligence, mere reliance upon the site plan is not a safe move. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 166 has considered this aspect and has categorically held that a site plan cannot be the sole basis to infer contributory negligence. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, mere blind reliance on the said site plan cannot form the basis to establish a case of contributory negligence.

16. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, the second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also does not find favour with the Court. No other point has been pressed. The Court has considered the award and the findings are found to be robust and just. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there is not enough material to interfere with the award dated 25.10.2021 passed in C.P. No.147 of 2016.

17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

18. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimant-respondents. Any shortfall shall also be made good by the Insurance Company within a period of sixty days so that the amount of compensation is paid to the claimant as per the award, if already not paid.

19. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 A.Dewal (Jaspreet Singh, J) ASHISH DEWAL ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench