High Court · 2025

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 105 of 2025 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager Thru. Regional Manager Respondent :- Pushpa And 10 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Maneesh Pandey Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Maneesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, submits that the learned tribunal though recorded a finding that the accident was a head on collision but determined the liability of the claimant-respondent only to the extent of 30% whereas in the case of head on collision, it should have been 50%. He further submits that interest has been awarded on the future prospects, which could not have been awarded.

3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the documents placed on record of this appeal.

4. The plea was taken by the claimant-respondents that the offending truck No.JH 19 B-3478 had hit loader from the back side but on the basis of the site plan prepared during investigation, placed on record by the Insurance Company, the learned tribunal recorded a finding of head on collision and determined the liability of the loader to the extent of 30%, whereas it is settled law that any material or evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings cannot be considered in the motor accident claim cases as motor accident claim cases are to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced before it and on pre- ponderance of probabilities, according to which proof is not required to be beyond doubt. Even otherwise, any material or evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings can be considered in the trial before the tribunal under the M.V.Act subject to the cogent evidence produced by the party who has claimed any benefit of the said evidence. On a query being put, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that no evidence has been adduced to prove the site plan, which was prepared during the investigation by the investigating officer.

5. In view of above, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and not tenable in law. Therefore the judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of T.O. Anothony versus Karvaran and others; 2008 AIR SCW 2045 is of no help to learned counsel for the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavathi and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266, has held that in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it can not be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The relevant paragraph 11 is extracted here-in-below:- "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 Mohan', 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 and Ors.2. 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."

6. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the interest on future prospects is concerned, this Court has already decided this issue in the case of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corp. Lko. Thru R.M. versus Bhawani Prasad Manjhi; F.A.F.O. No.42 of 2016 and held that since future prospects is also a component of compensation in accordance with law and it accrues on the date of accident but not paid by the insurance company or the person liable to pay the same and the interest is awarded from the date of accident, thus there is no illegality or infirmity in it. The relevant paragraph nos.36 and 37 are extracted hereinbelow:- "36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case Union of India Vs. Rina Devi; (2019) 3 SCC 572, considered the issue of interest on the compensation in case of untowered incident under the Railways Act. However, held that legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and conflicting views stand resolved in this manner. It has been held in this case that the law law in the present context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases.

37. In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and not tenable and this Court is of the view that the claimant-respondent is entitled for the future prospects and interest thereon also."

7. In view of above, this appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds and it is liable to be dismissed.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. The statutory deposit made before this Court shall be remitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith, which may be adjusted in the payments to be made to the claimant- respondents under the impugned judgement and award dated 28.11.2024 passed in M.A.C.P. No.202 of 2018 (Old Number), M.A.C.P. No. 53 of 2019 (New Number) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Haseen U. HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 105 of 2025 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Branch Manager Thru. Regional Manager Respondent :- Pushpa And 10 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Maneesh Pandey Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

1. Heard Sri Maneesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, submits that the learned tribunal though recorded a finding that the accident was a head on collision but determined the liability of the claimant-respondent only to the extent of 30% whereas in the case of head on collision, it should have been 50%. He further submits that interest has been awarded on the future prospects, which could not have been awarded.

3. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the documents placed on record of this appeal.

4. The plea was taken by the claimant-respondents that the offending truck No.JH 19 B-3478 had hit loader from the back side but on the basis of the site plan prepared during investigation, placed on record by the Insurance Company, the learned tribunal recorded a finding of head on collision and determined the liability of the loader to the extent of 30%, whereas it is settled law that any material or evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings cannot be considered in the motor accident claim cases as motor accident claim cases are to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced before it and on pre- ponderance of probabilities, according to which proof is not required to be beyond doubt. Even otherwise, any material or evidence adduced in the criminal proceedings can be considered in the trial before the tribunal under the M.V.Act subject to the cogent evidence produced by the party who has claimed any benefit of the said evidence. On a query being put, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that no evidence has been adduced to prove the site plan, which was prepared during the investigation by the investigating officer.

5. In view of above, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and not tenable in law. Therefore the judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant in the case of T.O. Anothony versus Karvaran and others; 2008 AIR SCW 2045 is of no help to learned counsel for the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhavathi and Others Vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 266, has held that in absence of any direct or corroborative evidence on record, it can not be assumed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. The relevant paragraph 11 is extracted here-in-below:- "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 Mohan', 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 and Ors.2. 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."

6. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the interest on future prospects is concerned, this Court has already decided this issue in the case of Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corp. Lko. Thru R.M. versus Bhawani Prasad Manjhi; F.A.F.O. No.42 of 2016 and held that since future prospects is also a component of compensation in accordance with law and it accrues on the date of accident but not paid by the insurance company or the person liable to pay the same and the interest is awarded from the date of accident, thus there is no illegality or infirmity in it. The relevant paragraph nos.36 and 37 are extracted hereinbelow:- "36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case Union of India Vs. Rina Devi; (2019) 3 SCC 572, considered the issue of interest on the compensation in case of untowered incident under the Railways Act. However, held that legal position in this regard is at par with the cases of accident claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and conflicting views stand resolved in this manner. It has been held in this case that the law law in the present context should be taken to be that the liability will accrue on the date of the accident and the amount applicable as on that date will be the amount recoverable but the claimant will get interest from the date of accident till the payment at such rate as may be considered just and fair from time to time. In this context, rate of interest applicable in motor accident claim cases can be held to be reasonable and fair. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that compensation will be payable as applicable on the date of the accident with interest as may be considered reasonable from time to time on the same pattern as in accident claim cases.

37. In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is misconceived and not tenable and this Court is of the view that the claimant-respondent is entitled for the future prospects and interest thereon also."

7. In view of above, this appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds and it is liable to be dismissed.

8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

9. The statutory deposit made before this Court shall be remitted to the concerned tribunal forthwith, which may be adjusted in the payments to be made to the claimant- respondents under the impugned judgement and award dated 28.11.2024 passed in M.A.C.P. No.202 of 2018 (Old Number), M.A.C.P. No. 53 of 2019 (New Number) by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unnao. ...................................................................(Rajnish Kumar, J.) Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Haseen U. HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench