High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Appellant :- Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Anju Tiwari And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Mahesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Tripathi,Rajesh Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 26.11.2016 passed by the MACT/ADJ, Court No. 7, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) in Claim Petition No. 86 of 2015 whereby in a death case, a sum of Rs. 7,13,500/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents against the owner of the offending vehicle and the said award had to be subrogated by the appellant-Insurance Company. Briefly, the facts are that on 09.09.2014, deceased Anil Tiwari along with his wife respondent no. 1 Anju Tiwari, were travelling from Faizabad to Lucknow on motorcycle no. UP-44 X-8903 and as soon as they reached a little west of Lohia Bridge, at about 2:45 p.m., the driver of Bolero jeep no. UP-42 AT-1780 coming from the opposite direction driving negligently and recklessly hit the motorcycle, due to which the motorcyclist Anil Tiwari sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious whereas Anju Tiwari, who was sitting behind on the motorcycle, sustained minor injuries. People present on the spot called an ambulance and took him to the district hospital where Anil Tiwari passed away on the very same day during treatment. It is on account of death of Anil Tiwari a report was filed on 03.02.2015, on the basis of an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and it is in view thereof that the claimants i.e. wife and children and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs. 42,84,800/-. The owner of the Bolero Jeep, denied the averments made in the claim petition and further claimed that the driver had a valid license and vehicle in question had a valid permit and fitness on the date of accident, he further submitted that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. i.e. the appellant in present appeal. The appellant Insurance Company filed a separate written statement counter bearing Paper No.12-Ka/1 and took the defence that unless and until the documentary evidence regarding the validity of the driving license, insurance policy and permit, etc., is placed before the Tribunal on record till then no liability could lie on the insurance company. Further the Insurance company alleged that the accident was held on account of negligent driving of the Deceased and he himself fell on the ground, furthermore it alleged that Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had not been followed by the investigating agencies, nor any FIR had been registered and they contented that the accident is a result of negligence of an unknown vehicle. Respondent No. 6 i.e. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company ltd. made very general defence, and alleged that the accident was due to negligence of the Driver of the Bolero Jeep UP-42 AT-1780 and contented that driver did not possess proper and necessary documents, and contended that the driver was liable. Upon pleading of the parties the tribunal framed six issues and the tribunal after considering the rival contentions and upon perusal of the record, held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation and concluded that the said vehicle satisfied all the insurance conditions, and placed the entire responsibility of paying the amount of compensation i.e. sum of Rs. 7,13,500/- along with 7% interest to the claimants on the present appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has submitted that since there was no FIR lodged in respect of the accident, coupled with the fact that no investigation took place, the factum of the accident itself becomes doubtful. It is also urged that there was no document brought on record indicating that the vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing No. UP-42-AD- 3780 did not have the necessary permit and since it was not being driven accordance to the policy conditions, hence, no award could be passed against the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all necessary documents were submitted before the Court which have been taken note of and the amount which has been granted is after ascertaining that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bolero Jeep UP-42-AD-3780 and as such the aforesaid findings do not require any interference from this Court. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Now, it is too well settled to be disputed that mere non-filing of the FIR is not going to impact the filing or the existence of the accident which in any case has to be proved in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The record indicates that in response to the claim petition, the owner/driver of the offending Bolero Jeep, though, by filing the written statement had denied the factum of the accident but he did not enter into the witness box nor led any evidence to support the claim. It is now well settled that taking a plea in the written statement does not partake the nature of proof which has to be proved as a fact by leading cogent evidence. Admittedly, the owner/driver did not enter into the witness box to contradict the statement as well as the evidence led by the claimants disprove the factum of the accident. It is also relevant to notice that the wife of the deceased was also an eye-witness and a pillion rider on the motorcycle and gave an account of how the accident occurred. Another independent witness was examined and both stated and supported the factum of the accident. No contrary evidence was led to dispute the said fact and once the foundational facts were proved, the Tribunal was well within its right to proceed to compute the compensation. (Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009) 13 SCC 530; (ii) Sunita & Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another (2020) 13 SCC 486 and (iii) Anita Sharma and others V. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant and that the driver was also having a valid and subsisting license. The mere fact that certain permit was not filed as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant also does not come to the aid of the appellant for the reason and a copy of the said permit was placed on record and there is nothing contrary which has been filed either by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle or by the Insurance Company to indicate that the said Bolero vehicle was plying without the necessary permit. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the findings returned by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 86 of 2015 and the award dated 26.11.2016 does not suffer from any error, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The award dated 26.11.2016 is affirmed. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Claims Tribunal and it shall be released in favour of the claimants-respondents and any shortfall shall also be made good within a period of 60 days along with updated interest and be paid to the claimants as per the award. No order as to costs. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Appellant :- Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Anju Tiwari And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Mahesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Tripathi,Rajesh Pandey Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 26.11.2016 passed by the MACT/ADJ, Court No. 7, Faizabad (now Ayodhya) in Claim Petition No. 86 of 2015 whereby in a death case, a sum of Rs. 7,13,500/- along with 7% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents against the owner of the offending vehicle and the said award had to be subrogated by the appellant-Insurance Company. Briefly, the facts are that on 09.09.2014, deceased Anil Tiwari along with his wife respondent no. 1 Anju Tiwari, were travelling from Faizabad to Lucknow on motorcycle no. UP-44 X-8903 and as soon as they reached a little west of Lohia Bridge, at about 2:45 p.m., the driver of Bolero jeep no. UP-42 AT-1780 coming from the opposite direction driving negligently and recklessly hit the motorcycle, due to which the motorcyclist Anil Tiwari sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious whereas Anju Tiwari, who was sitting behind on the motorcycle, sustained minor injuries. People present on the spot called an ambulance and took him to the district hospital where Anil Tiwari passed away on the very same day during treatment. It is on account of death of Anil Tiwari a report was filed on 03.02.2015, on the basis of an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and it is in view thereof that the claimants i.e. wife and children and mother of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs. 42,84,800/-. The owner of the Bolero Jeep, denied the averments made in the claim petition and further claimed that the driver had a valid license and vehicle in question had a valid permit and fitness on the date of accident, he further submitted that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. i.e. the appellant in present appeal. The appellant Insurance Company filed a separate written statement counter bearing Paper No.12-Ka/1 and took the defence that unless and until the documentary evidence regarding the validity of the driving license, insurance policy and permit, etc., is placed before the Tribunal on record till then no liability could lie on the insurance company. Further the Insurance company alleged that the accident was held on account of negligent driving of the Deceased and he himself fell on the ground, furthermore it alleged that Section 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had not been followed by the investigating agencies, nor any FIR had been registered and they contented that the accident is a result of negligence of an unknown vehicle. Respondent No. 6 i.e. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company ltd. made very general defence, and alleged that the accident was due to negligence of the Driver of the Bolero Jeep UP-42 AT-1780 and contented that driver did not possess proper and necessary documents, and contended that the driver was liable. Upon pleading of the parties the tribunal framed six issues and the tribunal after considering the rival contentions and upon perusal of the record, held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation and concluded that the said vehicle satisfied all the insurance conditions, and placed the entire responsibility of paying the amount of compensation i.e. sum of Rs. 7,13,500/- along with 7% interest to the claimants on the present appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company has submitted that since there was no FIR lodged in respect of the accident, coupled with the fact that no investigation took place, the factum of the accident itself becomes doubtful. It is also urged that there was no document brought on record indicating that the vehicle i.e. Bolero bearing No. UP-42-AD- 3780 did not have the necessary permit and since it was not being driven accordance to the policy conditions, hence, no award could be passed against the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all necessary documents were submitted before the Court which have been taken note of and the amount which has been granted is after ascertaining that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bolero Jeep UP-42-AD-3780 and as such the aforesaid findings do not require any interference from this Court. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. Now, it is too well settled to be disputed that mere non-filing of the FIR is not going to impact the filing or the existence of the accident which in any case has to be proved in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The record indicates that in response to the claim petition, the owner/driver of the offending Bolero Jeep, though, by filing the written statement had denied the factum of the accident but he did not enter into the witness box nor led any evidence to support the claim. It is now well settled that taking a plea in the written statement does not partake the nature of proof which has to be proved as a fact by leading cogent evidence. Admittedly, the owner/driver did not enter into the witness box to contradict the statement as well as the evidence led by the claimants disprove the factum of the accident. It is also relevant to notice that the wife of the deceased was also an eye-witness and a pillion rider on the motorcycle and gave an account of how the accident occurred. Another independent witness was examined and both stated and supported the factum of the accident. No contrary evidence was led to dispute the said fact and once the foundational facts were proved, the Tribunal was well within its right to proceed to compute the compensation. (Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009) 13 SCC 530; (ii) Sunita & Others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Another (2020) 13 SCC 486 and (iii) Anita Sharma and others V. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171. It is not disputed that the vehicle in question was duly insured with the appellant and that the driver was also having a valid and subsisting license. The mere fact that certain permit was not filed as suggested by learned counsel for the appellant also does not come to the aid of the appellant for the reason and a copy of the said permit was placed on record and there is nothing contrary which has been filed either by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle or by the Insurance Company to indicate that the said Bolero vehicle was plying without the necessary permit. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the findings returned by the Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 86 of 2015 and the award dated 26.11.2016 does not suffer from any error, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The award dated 26.11.2016 is affirmed. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Claims Tribunal and it shall be released in favour of the claimants-respondents and any shortfall shall also be made good within a period of 60 days along with updated interest and be paid to the claimants as per the award. No order as to costs. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench