Allahabad High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This is a batch of two appeals preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19881 assailing the impugned award dated 27.01.2014 passed in Claim Petition No.460 of 2005, whereby, 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1988”) F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.1 of 26 in a death case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal2/Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Lucknow has awarded a sum of Rs.20,94,925/- along with 7% interest per annum in favour of the claimants.

2. Appeal, bearing F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited3, whereas the other connected appeal bearing F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the two appeals have been connected, heard together, and decided by this common judgment.

3. At the outset, this Court proposes to first take up F.A.F.O. No. 386 of 2014 filed by the Insurance Company for consideration. It has been urged that the basic ingredients for grant of compensation in a petition preferred under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 depend upon the pleading and proof of negligence. In case the negligence itself is not 2 (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) 3 (hereinafter referred as “Insurance Company”) F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.2 of 26 proved, no amount can be awarded. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to consider this issue first and in case something survives, then, of course, the issue of enhancement would also be considered.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant appeal, it will be appropriate to notice certain brief facts giving rise to the instant appeals.

5. For the sake of convenience, the Court shall take the facts from F.A.F.O. No. 386 of 2014 and the parties shall be described as impleaded in the said F.A.F.O.

6. It was the case of claimants-respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the deceased, namely, Dr. Nitin Singh, who was working as a Consultant and Fellow at Sankara Nethralaya in Coimbatore4. On

21.08.2004, at around 10:45 P.M., it is stated that the deceased was riding his Activa Scooter bearing No.MH12SA939. It is further stated that he was hit 4 (hereinafter referred to as “Nethralaya”) F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.3 of 26 by a Truck bearing No.KL9K72825. As a result of the said accident, Dr. Nitin Singh suffered grievous injuries and died. The offending Truck is said to be insured with the appellant and the owner of the said Truck has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 (herein), whereas respondent No. 5 is the driver of the said vehicle. It is also stated that another

colleague of the deceased, Sri K. Ramachandran, had lodged an F.I.R., which, after investigation, was followed with a chargesheet which was also filed. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the parents and wife of the deceased instituted Claim Petition No. 460 of 2005.

7. The said claim petition came to be contested; however, apart from filing the written statement, none appeared on behalf of the owner or the driver. It was only the Insurance Company that contested the plea. Taking note of the material evidence laid before the Tribunal and upon its analysis, the Tribunal recorded findings of fact to the effect: 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Truck”) F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.4 of 26 (i) that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck; (ii) that the Truck in question was duly insured with the appellant-company; (iii) that the driver of the Truck possessed the requisite documents, a valid permit and a valid and subsisting driving licence.

8. The Tribunal thereafter went on to compute the compensation and found that the deceased was 29 years of age. He was survived by his father, mother and wife. Since it was pleaded that the deceased was in a Fellowship programme with Nethralaya, where he was being paid a stipend of Rs.10,000/-, the same was taken as his income. Considering his age, the multiplier of 17 was adopted and after making deductions and factoring 50% towards future prospects, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,94,925/- along with 7% interest, vide the award dated 27.01.2014. It is F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.5 of 26 this award which is under challenge before this Court in the appeal.

9. Ms. Pooja Arora, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently urged that there are glaring discrepancies in the statement of the alleged eyewitness, namely, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, who was examined as P.W.2. The thrust of the submission is that, as per the claimants' plea, the accident occurred in Coimbatore. As a first response, the F.I.R. came to be lodged by Sri K. Ramachandran, who was also a colleague of the deceased. In the said F.I.R., there is no mention of Sanjeev Kumar Verma, who was later examined as an eyewitness and marked as P.W.2. It is also urged that when the said alleged eyewitness was cross-examined, there were glaring gaps in his testimony, which clearly indicated that he was neither present at the site nor had any idea regarding the occurrence. Being known to the family of the deceased, he had put in an appearance and agreed to depose as an eyewitness. Such a testimony could not have been F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.6 of 26 relied upon by the Tribunal to record a finding regarding rash and negligent driving.

10. A corollary of the aforesaid submission is that, admittedly, Sri K. Ramachandran, who had lodged the F.I.R. promptly and was admittedly a colleague of the deceased, was never examined nor invited to enter the witness box. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the claimants withheld the best evidence from the Tribunal. Accordingly, the issue relating to rash and negligent driving was not proved. Hence, in such circumstances, no award could have been made, much less a direction to the Insurance Company to indemnify the said award.

11. Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has urged that P.W.2- Sanjeev Kumar Verma, even though known to the family, his testimony could not be discarded on this account alone. He had specifically stated that he had gone on a leisure trip to Coimbatore and, on the given fateful day, he was with the deceased as a pillion rider. He narrated the accident and his F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.7 of 26 testimony cannot be faulted for certain minor discrepancies which do not impact the foundational facts.

12. It is also urged that though the deceased and his family members were residents of Lucknow and since the deceased was in Coimbatore, apparently, the parents along with his wife, who filed for the compensation, were not eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the accident did not happen or that the offending Truck was not being driven rashly or negligently. Once the foundational facts regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death or injury to the person are proved, and negligence can be inferred. As far as the compensation is concerned, it is paid under the Act, 1988, which is part of a social welfare scheme and it has to be construed with a pragmatic approach and a pedantic view should be shunned.

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that it is urged the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the death F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.8 of 26 of Dr. Nitin Singh was a direct outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the Truck.

14. Sri Shishir Pradhan, taking his submissions forward and seeking enhancement of the award, which is the subject matter of F.A.F.O. No. 630 of 2014, has urged that the deceased had a bright future. He had good qualifications as an eye surgeon and even though he was working under a Fellowship at Nethralaya and was granted a stipend of Rs. 10,000/-, he had been offered an appointment at one of the leading eye clinics in Lucknow, where he was assured a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month along with the opportunity of private practice. In case he chose to forgo his private practice, he would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is on this basis that the Tribunal should have computed the income and having failed to do so, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum.

15. Learned counsel for the claimants–respondents has further urged that, apart from the aforesaid F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.9 of 26 facts, the Tribunal has also not appropriately considered the issue of grant of consortium and the amount towards the conventional heads. Accordingly, the award is on the lower side and requires modification and indulgence by the Court.

16. Ms. Arora, for the Insurance Company, while refuting the submissions insofar as the enhancement is concerned, has urged that all the relevant aspects have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, inasmuch as the appropriate multiplier considering the age of the deceased, the income as proved, as well as the number of family members and appropriate figures towards conventional heads have been awarded. As such, there is no question of any enhancement in the award. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants also deserves to be dismissed.

17. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the material on record. F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.10 of 26

18. The record reflects certain undisputed facts, namely, that the deceased was in Coimbatore undergoing a Fellowship programme with Nethralaya and was awarded a stipend of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is also not disputed that the death of Dr. Nitin Singh occurred as a result of an accident involving the offending Truck. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the alleged accident took place at around 10:45 P.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly at around 0:100 hours. The F.I.R. was lodged by Sri K. Ramachandran, who was a colleague of the deceased. It is also not disputed that the deceased was 29 years of age and was survived by his aged parents and a young wife.

19. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, which apparently tempts the Court to enter into the arena of reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the death of the deceased was on account of rash and negligent F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.11 of 26 driving of the offending Truck insured by the appellant-Insurance Company.

20. It is in this context that, if the record is perused, it reflects that on behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased, Dr. S.K. Singh, was examined as P.W.1, whereas Sanjeev Kumar Verma, said to be an eyewitness who was with the deceased at the time of the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, was examined as P.W.3, to prove the income of the deceased.

21. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that Sri K. Ramachandran, who was a colleague of the deceased and the first responder who got the F.I.R. lodged, being the best witness, was never examined. As far as P.W.2- Sanjeev Kumar Verma is concerned, though he is stated to be the eyewitness, his testimony indicates that he was not aware of the basic facts, which raises doubt as to whether he was present at the site or not. F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.12 of 26

22. Having considered this aspect of the matter and upon perusal of the statement recorded by P.W.2 – Sanjeev Kumar Verma, it appears that in his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was present at the site along with the deceased, who had invited him to Coimbatore for a leisure trip. He also stated that he had witnessed the accident, which was an outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the Truck. He further explained that all the paperwork was handled by Sri K. Ramachandran due to a communication gap arising from the language barrier, as P.W.2 – Sanjeev Kumar Verma, being from North India, was not well-versed in the regional language spoken in Coimbatore.

23. If the cross-examination of the said witness is perused, it indicates that emphasis was laid on certain non-vital issues. It was pointed out that the witness did not know where or in which State Coimbatore is located. It was further highlighted that he could not specify the intervening stations while traveling from Lucknow to Coimbatore. More F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.13 of 26 surprisingly, if the said witness was indeed present at the site, he made no mention of Sri K. Ramachandran and vice versa, Sri K. Ramachandran, while lodging the F.I.R., did not mention the presence of P.W.2- Sanjeev Kumar Verma. This casts doubt on the presence of the said witness at the scene of the accident.

24. This Court, having taken note of the aforesaid, finds that it is not disputed that an F.I.R. was lodged. It is also not disputed that, in furtherance thereof, a chargesheet was filed wherein the driver of the offending Truck was named as an accused. The accident occurred on 21.08.2004, whereas the witnesses were examined in the year 2013, almost nine years after the date of the accident. In such circumstances, certain discrepancies in the depositions/statements are only natural, and this cannot be a ground to discredit the testimonies of the witnesses, especially in matters relating to accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles, which are the subject matter under the Act, 1988. F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.14 of 26

25. This aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in : (i) Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation6; (ii) Sunita and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transportation Corporation and another7; (iii) Anita Sharma and others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another8. (iv) Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and another9.

26. In light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the clear view that minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses— especially when recorded after nine years—cannot be tested by any empirical formula. It is but natural that some latitude must be afforded in appearing such evidence. If the foundational facts

colleague of the deceased, Sri K. Ramachandran, had lodged an F.I.R., which, after investigation, was followed with a chargesheet which was also filed. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the parents and wife of the deceased instituted Claim Petition No. 460 of 2005.

7. The said claim petition came to be contested; however, apart from filing the written statement, none appeared on behalf of the owner or the driver. It was only the Insurance Company that contested the plea. Taking note of the material evidence laid before the Tribunal and upon its analysis, the Tribunal recorded findings of fact to the effect: 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Truck”) F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.4 of 26 (i) that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck; (ii) that the Truck in question was duly insured with the appellant-company; (iii) that the driver of the Truck possessed the requisite documents, a valid permit and a valid and subsisting driving licence.

8. The Tribunal thereafter went on to compute the compensation and found that the deceased was 29 years of age. He was survived by his father, mother and wife. Since it was pleaded that the deceased was in a Fellowship programme with Nethralaya, where he was being paid a stipend of Rs.10,000/-, the same was taken as his income. Considering his age, the multiplier of 17 was adopted and after making deductions and factoring 50% towards future prospects, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 20,94,925/- along with 7% interest, vide the award dated 27.01.2014. It is F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.5 of 26 this award which is under challenge before this Court in the appeal.

9. Ms. Pooja Arora, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has vehemently urged that there are glaring discrepancies in the statement of the alleged eyewitness, namely, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Verma, who was examined as P.W.2. The thrust of the submission is that, as per the claimants' plea, the accident occurred in Coimbatore. As a first response, the F.I.R. came to be lodged by Sri K. Ramachandran, who was also a colleague of the deceased. In the said F.I.R., there is no mention of Sanjeev Kumar Verma, who was later examined as an eyewitness and marked as P.W.2. It is also urged that when the said alleged eyewitness was cross-examined, there were glaring gaps in his testimony, which clearly indicated that he was neither present at the site nor had any idea regarding the occurrence. Being known to the family of the deceased, he had put in an appearance and agreed to depose as an eyewitness. Such a testimony could not have been F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.6 of 26 relied upon by the Tribunal to record a finding regarding rash and negligent driving.

10. A corollary of the aforesaid submission is that, admittedly, Sri K. Ramachandran, who had lodged the F.I.R. promptly and was admittedly a colleague of the deceased, was never examined nor invited to enter the witness box. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the claimants withheld the best evidence from the Tribunal. Accordingly, the issue relating to rash and negligent driving was not proved. Hence, in such circumstances, no award could have been made, much less a direction to the Insurance Company to indemnify the said award.

11. Sri Shishir Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has urged that P.W.2- Sanjeev Kumar Verma, even though known to the family, his testimony could not be discarded on this account alone. He had specifically stated that he had gone on a leisure trip to Coimbatore and, on the given fateful day, he was with the deceased as a pillion rider. He narrated the accident and his F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.7 of 26 testimony cannot be faulted for certain minor discrepancies which do not impact the foundational facts.

12. It is also urged that though the deceased and his family members were residents of Lucknow and since the deceased was in Coimbatore, apparently, the parents along with his wife, who filed for the compensation, were not eyewitnesses. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the accident did not happen or that the offending Truck was not being driven rashly or negligently. Once the foundational facts regarding the occurrence of the accident and the death or injury to the person are proved, and negligence can be inferred. As far as the compensation is concerned, it is paid under the Act, 1988, which is part of a social welfare scheme and it has to be construed with a pragmatic approach and a pedantic view should be shunned.

13. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that it is urged the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the death F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.8 of 26 of Dr. Nitin Singh was a direct outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the Truck.

14. Sri Shishir Pradhan, taking his submissions forward and seeking enhancement of the award, which is the subject matter of F.A.F.O. No. 630 of 2014, has urged that the deceased had a bright future. He had good qualifications as an eye surgeon and even though he was working under a Fellowship at Nethralaya and was granted a stipend of Rs. 10,000/-, he had been offered an appointment at one of the leading eye clinics in Lucknow, where he was assured a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month along with the opportunity of private practice. In case he chose to forgo his private practice, he would be entitled to Rs. 40,000/- per month. It is on this basis that the Tribunal should have computed the income and having failed to do so, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre sum.

15. Learned counsel for the claimants–respondents has further urged that, apart from the aforesaid F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.9 of 26 facts, the Tribunal has also not appropriately considered the issue of grant of consortium and the amount towards the conventional heads. Accordingly, the award is on the lower side and requires modification and indulgence by the Court.

16. Ms. Arora, for the Insurance Company, while refuting the submissions insofar as the enhancement is concerned, has urged that all the relevant aspects have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal, inasmuch as the appropriate multiplier considering the age of the deceased, the income as proved, as well as the number of family members and appropriate figures towards conventional heads have been awarded. As such, there is no question of any enhancement in the award. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimants also deserves to be dismissed.

17. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the material on record. F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.10 of 26

18. The record reflects certain undisputed facts, namely, that the deceased was in Coimbatore undergoing a Fellowship programme with Nethralaya and was awarded a stipend of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is also not disputed that the death of Dr. Nitin Singh occurred as a result of an accident involving the offending Truck. Furthermore, it is not disputed that the alleged accident took place at around 10:45 P.M. and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly at around 0:100 hours. The F.I.R. was lodged by Sri K. Ramachandran, who was a colleague of the deceased. It is also not disputed that the deceased was 29 years of age and was survived by his aged parents and a young wife.

19. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, which apparently tempts the Court to enter into the arena of reappraisal of evidence for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the death of the deceased was on account of rash and negligent F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.11 of 26 driving of the offending Truck insured by the appellant-Insurance Company.

20. It is in this context that, if the record is perused, it reflects that on behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased, Dr. S.K. Singh, was examined as P.W.1, whereas Sanjeev Kumar Verma, said to be an eyewitness who was with the deceased at the time of the accident, was examined as P.W.2. Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, was examined as P.W.3, to prove the income of the deceased.

21. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that Sri K. Ramachandran, who was a colleague of the deceased and the first responder who got the F.I.R. lodged, being the best witness, was never examined. As far as P.W.2- Sanjeev Kumar Verma is concerned, though he is stated to be the eyewitness, his testimony indicates that he was not aware of the basic facts, which raises doubt as to whether he was present at the site or not. F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.12 of 26

22. Having considered this aspect of the matter and upon perusal of the statement recorded by P.W.2 – Sanjeev Kumar Verma, it appears that in his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was present at the site along with the deceased, who had invited him to Coimbatore for a leisure trip. He also stated that he had witnessed the accident, which was an outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the Truck. He further explained that all the paperwork was handled by Sri K. Ramachandran due to a communication gap arising from the language barrier, as P.W.2 – Sanjeev Kumar Verma, being from North India, was not well-versed in the regional language spoken in Coimbatore.

23. If the cross-examination of the said witness is perused, it indicates that emphasis was laid on certain non-vital issues. It was pointed out that the witness did not know where or in which State Coimbatore is located. It was further highlighted that he could not specify the intervening stations while traveling from Lucknow to Coimbatore. More F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.13 of 26 surprisingly, if the said witness was indeed present at the site, he made no mention of Sri K. Ramachandran and vice versa, Sri K. Ramachandran, while lodging the F.I.R., did not mention the presence of P.W.2- Sanjeev Kumar Verma. This casts doubt on the presence of the said witness at the scene of the accident.

24. This Court, having taken note of the aforesaid, finds that it is not disputed that an F.I.R. was lodged. It is also not disputed that, in furtherance thereof, a chargesheet was filed wherein the driver of the offending Truck was named as an accused. The accident occurred on 21.08.2004, whereas the witnesses were examined in the year 2013, almost nine years after the date of the accident. In such circumstances, certain discrepancies in the depositions/statements are only natural, and this cannot be a ground to discredit the testimonies of the witnesses, especially in matters relating to accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles, which are the subject matter under the Act, 1988. F.A.F.O. No.630 of 2014 & F.A.F.O. No.386 of 2014 Page No.14 of 26

25. This aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in : (i) Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation6; (ii) Sunita and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transportation Corporation and another7; (iii) Anita Sharma and others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another8. (iv) Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and another9.

26. In light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the clear view that minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses— especially when recorded after nine years—cannot be tested by any empirical formula. It is but natural that some latitude must be afforded in appearing such evidence. If the foundational facts