Shalini Mishra and others v. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and others)

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondents/the petitioner no.1 Shalini Mishra, wife of Vineet Mishra, filed a claim petition along with her daughter, Gauri Mishra, and minor daughter, Shambhavi Mishra 12.08.20220 against the insurer and owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 25 AD 9941 (Mahindra Car). It is submitted that on 12-08-2020 at around 7:45 PM, the deceased, Dr. Vineet Mishra, died in a motor accident while he was traveling by his motorcycle from his clinic to his home situated in Cantt. Lucknow, the driver of the car hit him on front of his motorcycle, 2 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 due to which he suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. The learned Tribunal awarded the claim by the impugned judgment and order of 30- 08-2025 for a sum of ₹51,88,750/- with 7% per annum simple interest, and the amount of compensation was apportioned amongst the claimants, subject to certain directions.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal, without giving credence to the fact that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the matter is required to be referred to a Special Investigating Team. This Court has directed by its judgment and order dated 07-10- 2015 in Criminal Revision No.49 of 2015, (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Ramawati and others), where fake motor accident claim had been filed by a group of people forming a racket, and 29 fake claim cases were decided in different districts in the State. He next submits that even the Investigating Officer of the case was changed during investigation in the present case. He further submits that learned Tribunal failed to note that in weekly news paper Vishwavarta dated 20.12.2020 where a news was published at the instance of father of the deceased in regard to the present accident is not a widely circulated paper and the witness (P.W.-2) has stated that he read this newspaper in Lucknow and had become extremely shocked. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic was wide spread and rampant at that time it is doubtful that the said P.W.-2 could have read a random newspaper at a Tea stall. The Tribunal failed to note that there is eyewitness who testified in the claim petition who returned up to inform the concerned Investigating Officer within two days of newspaper publication. After surfacing of the news through the newspaper publication, investigation also changed its case dramatically. Resultantly, without carrying out 3 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 effective investigation, the chargesheet was filed within eight days of said publication. The Tribunal failed to note the testimony of D.W.-1, namely, Shailendra Chaudhary, who precisely verified that the color of the car noted in RC as golden. However, P.W.-2. in cross-examination has stated that the color of the car was golden. The Tribunal skipped to consider the issue of contradiction in RC and oral evidence regarding the colour of the alleged offending vehicle, which was brought to testimony of the alleged witness (P.W.-2) and the Investigator of Insurance Company (D.W.-1). Learned Tribunal failed to note that P.W.-2 had although failed to correctly know the color of the car, which is painted all over it. However, he had correctly noted the registration number of the vehicle on the number plate, which is less prominent than the color of the car. Learned Tribunal also failed to note that no technical inspection report of the alleged offending vehicle was placed on record to fortify the fact that the alleged vehicle was actually involved in the accident. There are two eye witnesses named in the charge sheet. However, one of them who was presented before the Tribunal, flew from Hyderabad to Lucknow to testify before the Tribunal. The SIT to which in reference in respect of the accident in question was made, returned the same on the ground of lack of certain documents. P.W.-1 Shalini Mishra is not an eye witness. There are multiple contradictions in the evidednce of alleged eyewitness, namely, Ram Nath Awasthi. The other eyewitness is not produced in evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the involvement of the vehicle insured by the appellant is highly doubtful and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appeal should be admitted on these grounds. He also prayed that matter be referred to SIT for ascertaining the truth. In fact, false claim has been made against the 4 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 owner and insurer of the vehicle which is not involved in the accident. The vehicle has been planted in the present case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel of the respondents submitted that there is no apparent anomaly and factual and legal error in the judgment and award. Learned Tribunal has addressed all the issues involved in the case and has come to the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car insured by the appellant bearing Registration No.UP 25 AD 9941. The police submitted chargesheet against driver of car after investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on various judgments in support of his submission which are as under: (i) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chamundeshwari and others, 2021 ACJ 2558; (ii) Janabai and others vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 ACJ 2003; (iii) Sunita vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2019 ACJ 801; (iv) Saroj Devi and others vs. Narendra Singh and others, 2023 ACJ 2026; (v) Asha Devi and others vs. Assistant Director State Insurance and Provident Fund Department and others, 2021 ACJ 2679; (vi) Geeta Dubey and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2025 ACJ 15;

7. On the basis of ratio in Janabai and others (supra), learned counsel 5 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 reiterated the observations of the court that the rule of evidence to proof charges in a criminal case cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is of summary nature. Reasoning and veracity of the statement of the appellant who suffered injury in the accident. The application under law had to be decided on the basis of evidence laid before the Tribunal and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial.

8. In Geeta Dubey and others (supra), it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered a case of involvement of the vehicle in an accident between a car and a truck, resulting in death of an occupant of car, FIR was lodged against an unknown truck and police filed a closure report. Widow of the deceased subsequently filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, giving names of the eyewitnesses and registration umber of offending truck. The police, after recording the statement of eyewitnesses and re-investigation, filed charge sheet against the offending truck.

9. The Tribunal, relying on evidence, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by truck driver and awarded compensation. The insurance company filed an appeal, contending that the truck is falsely implicated. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that in claim cases, where an accident is disputed, or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in as an issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same upto preponderance of probability, and not beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, applying the test of preponderance of probability, we find that the claimants have established their case that it is 6 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 the truck bearing Registration Number MP19 HA 991197 which was involved in the accident with the car wherein the deceased was travelling.

10. In reply to the submissions of respondents side, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in Janabai and others (supra) the witnesses who testified were injured and their testimony received much weight in comparison to the witnesses in the present case, who were not concerned with the incident. Learned counsel for respondents lastly submitted that no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the insurance company. It neither moved an application for summoning investigation officer in the criminal case nor any other witness, to substantiate its case.

11. The appellant insurance company has assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question, which is insured by the appellant, was not involved in the accident. No other ground has been taken either with regard to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver or the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to respondent no.1 to 3.

12. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the involvement of the vehicle in the said accident, in which Vineet Mishra suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to death, is highly doubtful. In the In registration certificate of the vehicle, its color shown as golden, whereas P.W.-2, who claims to be an eyewitness, has stated its color white. It is difficult to believe that a person who could not remember the color of the vehicle correctly, had observed and remembered its registration correctly. In fact, P.W.-2 has not seen any incident; as it was a hit-and-run case, a public notice was issued in the name of the father of the deceased, in a list 7 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 circulated weekly newspaper Vishwavarta on 20/12/2020, in which it is stated that Vineet Mishra was hit by some vehicle while he was travelling by a motorcycle Bajaj Platina UP 32 HH 7529. In fact, this public notice has been issued at behest of the father-in-law of the deceased because the mobile number shown in said newspaper notice belongs to Shri Vajpayee and not Shri Vineet Mishra who subsequently died on 18/12/2023. This public notice was issued in a planned manner in order to connect the vehicle in question with the accident, because P.W.-2, Ramnath Awasthi, read this newspaper co-incidentally in a Tea shop on 20/08/2020 and he correlated the facts of this notice with the accident which he stated to have seen eight days ago and just thereafter he informed the Investigating Officer that the present vehicle was involved in the accident, which he had seen on 12/08/2020. In fact, he is not an eyewitness but a manufactured witness.

13. The matter was twice referred to the SIT, but it was returned by citing it due to technical objections. Therefore, at this stage, no useful purpose of law will be served by referring the matter again for probe by the SIT, the claim has already been decided by the Tribunal on merits. The appellant has failed to bring out any fact or complaint which could substantiate its version that a false claim has been made against the vehicle in question, which is insured by the appellant. Even the driver of the offending vehicle has not been produced by the opposite parties to support the death claim filed by the petitioners. It is the driver of the vehicle who is the best witness in regard to the accident, and due to non- examination of the driver of the vehicle, an adverse inference will be drawn against ensurer and owner of the vehicle. 8 FAFO No. 489 of 2025

14. A perusal of array of parties reveals that the respondent no.4 Mohd. Rauf is both the owner and driver of the vehicle. For reasons best known to the appellant and the respondent 4, he did not appear during the hearing of the case. The above reasons pointed out by the appellant to suggest that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, and is not sufficient to review and discard the claim made by the petitioners; and it has been proved by evidence adduced by them.

15. The case laws cited by the respondent no. 1 to 3 also support the case of the respondents/claimants. In Janabai and others (supra), the Hon' ble Supreme Court held that the application for accident claim has to be decided on the basis of evidence laid before the Tribunal and not on the basis of evidence which should have been, or could have been, laid in a criminal Trial. In the present case, the name of the respondent no.4 appeared during the investigation as owner/driver of the vehicle, and he has been chargesheeted by the investigating agency; therefore, it would be contrary to law to ignore the positive evidence led by the claimants only on the ground of some suspicious circumstances suggested by the appellant/ insurance company in petitioner's claim.

16. The appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal preferred by the insurance company is hereby dismissed and the judgment and award passed by the learned trial court is affirmed. November 14, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the respondents/the petitioner no.1 Shalini Mishra, wife of Vineet Mishra, filed a claim petition along with her daughter, Gauri Mishra, and minor daughter, Shambhavi Mishra 12.08.20220 against the insurer and owner of vehicle bearing Registration No. UP 25 AD 9941 (Mahindra Car). It is submitted that on 12-08-2020 at around 7:45 PM, the deceased, Dr. Vineet Mishra, died in a motor accident while he was traveling by his motorcycle from his clinic to his home situated in Cantt. Lucknow, the driver of the car hit him on front of his motorcycle, 2 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 due to which he suffered serious injuries and died on the spot. The learned Tribunal awarded the claim by the impugned judgment and order of 30- 08-2025 for a sum of ₹51,88,750/- with 7% per annum simple interest, and the amount of compensation was apportioned amongst the claimants, subject to certain directions.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal, without giving credence to the fact that, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the matter is required to be referred to a Special Investigating Team. This Court has directed by its judgment and order dated 07-10- 2015 in Criminal Revision No.49 of 2015, (ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Ramawati and others), where fake motor accident claim had been filed by a group of people forming a racket, and 29 fake claim cases were decided in different districts in the State. He next submits that even the Investigating Officer of the case was changed during investigation in the present case. He further submits that learned Tribunal failed to note that in weekly news paper Vishwavarta dated 20.12.2020 where a news was published at the instance of father of the deceased in regard to the present accident is not a widely circulated paper and the witness (P.W.-2) has stated that he read this newspaper in Lucknow and had become extremely shocked. However, since the COVID-19 pandemic was wide spread and rampant at that time it is doubtful that the said P.W.-2 could have read a random newspaper at a Tea stall. The Tribunal failed to note that there is eyewitness who testified in the claim petition who returned up to inform the concerned Investigating Officer within two days of newspaper publication. After surfacing of the news through the newspaper publication, investigation also changed its case dramatically. Resultantly, without carrying out 3 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 effective investigation, the chargesheet was filed within eight days of said publication. The Tribunal failed to note the testimony of D.W.-1, namely, Shailendra Chaudhary, who precisely verified that the color of the car noted in RC as golden. However, P.W.-2. in cross-examination has stated that the color of the car was golden. The Tribunal skipped to consider the issue of contradiction in RC and oral evidence regarding the colour of the alleged offending vehicle, which was brought to testimony of the alleged witness (P.W.-2) and the Investigator of Insurance Company (D.W.-1). Learned Tribunal failed to note that P.W.-2 had although failed to correctly know the color of the car, which is painted all over it. However, he had correctly noted the registration number of the vehicle on the number plate, which is less prominent than the color of the car. Learned Tribunal also failed to note that no technical inspection report of the alleged offending vehicle was placed on record to fortify the fact that the alleged vehicle was actually involved in the accident. There are two eye witnesses named in the charge sheet. However, one of them who was presented before the Tribunal, flew from Hyderabad to Lucknow to testify before the Tribunal. The SIT to which in reference in respect of the accident in question was made, returned the same on the ground of lack of certain documents. P.W.-1 Shalini Mishra is not an eye witness. There are multiple contradictions in the evidednce of alleged eyewitness, namely, Ram Nath Awasthi. The other eyewitness is not produced in evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the involvement of the vehicle insured by the appellant is highly doubtful and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appeal should be admitted on these grounds. He also prayed that matter be referred to SIT for ascertaining the truth. In fact, false claim has been made against the 4 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 owner and insurer of the vehicle which is not involved in the accident. The vehicle has been planted in the present case.

5. Per contra, learned counsel of the respondents submitted that there is no apparent anomaly and factual and legal error in the judgment and award. Learned Tribunal has addressed all the issues involved in the case and has come to the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car insured by the appellant bearing Registration No.UP 25 AD 9941. The police submitted chargesheet against driver of car after investigation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on various judgments in support of his submission which are as under: (i) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chamundeshwari and others, 2021 ACJ 2558; (ii) Janabai and others vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., 2022 ACJ 2003; (iii) Sunita vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2019 ACJ 801; (iv) Saroj Devi and others vs. Narendra Singh and others, 2023 ACJ 2026; (v) Asha Devi and others vs. Assistant Director State Insurance and Provident Fund Department and others, 2021 ACJ 2679; (vi) Geeta Dubey and others vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and others, 2025 ACJ 15;

7. On the basis of ratio in Janabai and others (supra), learned counsel 5 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 reiterated the observations of the court that the rule of evidence to proof charges in a criminal case cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is of summary nature. Reasoning and veracity of the statement of the appellant who suffered injury in the accident. The application under law had to be decided on the basis of evidence laid before the Tribunal and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial.

8. In Geeta Dubey and others (supra), it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered a case of involvement of the vehicle in an accident between a car and a truck, resulting in death of an occupant of car, FIR was lodged against an unknown truck and police filed a closure report. Widow of the deceased subsequently filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, giving names of the eyewitnesses and registration umber of offending truck. The police, after recording the statement of eyewitnesses and re-investigation, filed charge sheet against the offending truck.

9. The Tribunal, relying on evidence, found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by truck driver and awarded compensation. The insurance company filed an appeal, contending that the truck is falsely implicated. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that in claim cases, where an accident is disputed, or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in as an issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same upto preponderance of probability, and not beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, applying the test of preponderance of probability, we find that the claimants have established their case that it is 6 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 the truck bearing Registration Number MP19 HA 991197 which was involved in the accident with the car wherein the deceased was travelling.

10. In reply to the submissions of respondents side, learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in Janabai and others (supra) the witnesses who testified were injured and their testimony received much weight in comparison to the witnesses in the present case, who were not concerned with the incident. Learned counsel for respondents lastly submitted that no rebuttal evidence was adduced by the insurance company. It neither moved an application for summoning investigation officer in the criminal case nor any other witness, to substantiate its case.

11. The appellant insurance company has assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question, which is insured by the appellant, was not involved in the accident. No other ground has been taken either with regard to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver or the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to respondent no.1 to 3.

12. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the involvement of the vehicle in the said accident, in which Vineet Mishra suffered fatal injuries and succumbed to death, is highly doubtful. In the In registration certificate of the vehicle, its color shown as golden, whereas P.W.-2, who claims to be an eyewitness, has stated its color white. It is difficult to believe that a person who could not remember the color of the vehicle correctly, had observed and remembered its registration correctly. In fact, P.W.-2 has not seen any incident; as it was a hit-and-run case, a public notice was issued in the name of the father of the deceased, in a list 7 FAFO No. 489 of 2025 circulated weekly newspaper Vishwavarta on 20/12/2020, in which it is stated that Vineet Mishra was hit by some vehicle while he was travelling by a motorcycle Bajaj Platina UP 32 HH 7529. In fact, this public notice has been issued at behest of the father-in-law of the deceased because the mobile number shown in said newspaper notice belongs to Shri Vajpayee and not Shri Vineet Mishra who subsequently died on 18/12/2023. This public notice was issued in a planned manner in order to connect the vehicle in question with the accident, because P.W.-2, Ramnath Awasthi, read this newspaper co-incidentally in a Tea shop on 20/08/2020 and he correlated the facts of this notice with the accident which he stated to have seen eight days ago and just thereafter he informed the Investigating Officer that the present vehicle was involved in the accident, which he had seen on 12/08/2020. In fact, he is not an eyewitness but a manufactured witness.

13. The matter was twice referred to the SIT, but it was returned by citing it due to technical objections. Therefore, at this stage, no useful purpose of law will be served by referring the matter again for probe by the SIT, the claim has already been decided by the Tribunal on merits. The appellant has failed to bring out any fact or complaint which could substantiate its version that a false claim has been made against the vehicle in question, which is insured by the appellant. Even the driver of the offending vehicle has not been produced by the opposite parties to support the death claim filed by the petitioners. It is the driver of the vehicle who is the best witness in regard to the accident, and due to non- examination of the driver of the vehicle, an adverse inference will be drawn against ensurer and owner of the vehicle. 8 FAFO No. 489 of 2025

14. A perusal of array of parties reveals that the respondent no.4 Mohd. Rauf is both the owner and driver of the vehicle. For reasons best known to the appellant and the respondent 4, he did not appear during the hearing of the case. The above reasons pointed out by the appellant to suggest that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident, and is not sufficient to review and discard the claim made by the petitioners; and it has been proved by evidence adduced by them.

15. The case laws cited by the respondent no. 1 to 3 also support the case of the respondents/claimants. In Janabai and others (supra), the Hon' ble Supreme Court held that the application for accident claim has to be decided on the basis of evidence laid before the Tribunal and not on the basis of evidence which should have been, or could have been, laid in a criminal Trial. In the present case, the name of the respondent no.4 appeared during the investigation as owner/driver of the vehicle, and he has been chargesheeted by the investigating agency; therefore, it would be contrary to law to ignore the positive evidence led by the claimants only on the ground of some suspicious circumstances suggested by the appellant/ insurance company in petitioner's claim.

16. The appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. The appeal preferred by the insurance company is hereby dismissed and the judgment and award passed by the learned trial court is affirmed. November 14, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.) RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench