# Avinash Sharma v. Sobhran Lal & Anr - **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 496 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-03-26 - **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 12 of 2011 - **Bench:** Abdul Moin - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/avinash-sharma-v-sobhran-lal-anr-53215 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Rajendra Jaiswal, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Waquar Hashim Criminal Law - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACP) - Liability of Vehicle Owner - Validity of Driver's License - Accident occurred on 28.12.2006 - Claim filed for injuries - Tribunal held owner liable for compensation after finding driver did not possess a valid driving license - Owner failed to produce evidence proving valid driver - Owner's claim that valid license was held by another driver rejected - Tribunal correctly relied on charge sheet indicating unlicensed driver - No evidence led by appellant to prove valid driver- Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 13, 16, 23, and 25) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 102, 105, 106 & 114 - Burden of Proof - When a fact is within the knowledge of one party, the burden to prove it lies with that party - Failure to step into the witness box results in an adverse inference being drawn. (Paras 17, 23) Motor Accident Claims - Vehicle Owner's Liability - Non-Production of Evidence by Owner - The vehicle owner's failure to indicate the driver's identity or prove valid driving license leads to holding the owner liable - Charge sheet evidence substantiates that the driver lacked a valid license. (Paras 13, 16) HELD: In this regard, the Court may refer to Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872") which St.s that burden of proof in a suit or proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. (Para 18) Section 105 of the Act, 1872 provides for burden of proving the existence of circumstance by the person accused within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same code or in any law defining the offence and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. (Para 18) Section 106 of the Act, 1872 States that when any fact, is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. (Para 19) Thus, the knowledge of the vehicle being driven by Sri Siraju was exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant herein and as such, the burden of proof lay on him to prove such fact. However, no witness ever put in appearance on behalf of the appellant before the learned tribunal to proof the burden of establishing that the vehicle was being driven by Sri Siraju i.e the driver who was having a valid driving license. (Para 20) Having regard to Section 114 illustration (g) of the Act, 1872, if a party abstains from entering witness box and stating his own case and does not offer himself for cross-examination by the other side, a presumption arises that the case set up by him is not correct. (Para 21) As already indicated above, there was no evidence before the learned tribunal to indicate that the driver of the vehicle on the fateful day was Sri Siraju who was a valid driving license more particularly when the name of the driver 3 All. Avinash Sharma Vs. Sobhran Lal & Anr. 497 of the vehicle was suppressed by the owner of the vehicle while filing the written St.ment. Thus, the judgment of Jai Deo Singh (supra) would have no applicability in the instant case. (Para 25) Appeal dismissed. (E-14) List of Cases cited: ## Text 496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ---------- (2025) 3 ILRA 496 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 26.03.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. First Appeal from Order No. 12 of 2011 And FAFO Nos. 529 of 2011 & 10 of 2011 Avinash Sharma ...Appellant Versus Sobhran Lal & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Vivek Raj Singh, Avinash Chandra Counsel for the Respondents: Rajendra Jaiswal, Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Waquar Hashim Criminal Law - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACP) - Liability of Vehicle Owner - Validity of Driver's License - Accident occurred on 28.12.2006 - Claim filed for injuries - Tribunal held owner liable for compensation after finding driver did not possess a valid driving license - Owner failed to produce evidence proving valid driver - Owner's claim that valid license was held by another driver rejected - Tribunal correctly relied on charge sheet indicating unlicensed driver - No evidence led by appellant to prove valid driver- Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 13, 16, 23, and 25) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 102, 105, 106 & 114 - Burden of Proof - When a fact is within the knowledge of one party, the burden to prove it lies with that party - Failure to step into the witness box results in an adverse inference being drawn. (Paras 17, 23) Motor Accident Claims - Vehicle Owner's Liability - Non-Production of Evidence by Owner - The vehicle owner's failure to indicate the driver's identity or prove valid driving license leads to holding the owner liable - Charge sheet evidence substantiates that the driver lacked a valid license. (Paras 13, 16) HELD: In this regard, the Court may refer to Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872") which St.s that burden of proof in a suit or proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. (Para 18) Section 105 of the Act, 1872 provides for burden of proving the existence of circumstance by the person accused within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same code or in any law defining the offence and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. (Para 18) Section 106 of the Act, 1872 States that when any fact, is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. (Para 19) Thus, the knowledge of the vehicle being driven by Sri Siraju was exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant herein and as such, the burden of proof lay on him to prove such fact. However, no witness ever put in appearance on behalf of the appellant before the learned tribunal to proof the burden of establishing that the vehicle was being driven by Sri Siraju i.e the driver who was having a valid driving license. (Para 20) Having regard to Section 114 illustration (g) of the Act, 1872, if a party abstains from entering witness box and stating his own case and does not offer himself for cross-examination by the other side, a presumption arises that the case set up by him is not correct. (Para 21) As already indicated above, there was no evidence before the learned tribunal to indicate that the driver of the vehicle on the fateful day was Sri Siraju who was a valid driving license more particularly when the name of the driver 3 All. Avinash Sharma Vs. Sobhran Lal & Anr. 497 of the vehicle was suppressed by the owner of the vehicle while filing the written St.ment. Thus, the judgment of Jai Deo Singh (supra) would have no applicability in the instant case. (Para 25) Appeal dismissed. (E-14) List of Cases cited: 1. National Insurance Company Vs Jai Deo Singh & ors., 2010 (28) LCD 499 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Gian Chand & ors., (1997) 7 SCC 558 (Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.) 1. Heard Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the issue involved in First Appeal From Order No. - 12 Of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "First Appeal"), First Appeal From Order No. - 529 Of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "Second Appeal) and First Appeal From Order No. - 10 Of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as "Third Appeal") are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear all the appeals together. For the sake of convenience, the facts of first appeal no. 12 of 2011 are being taken. 3. The first appeal no. 12 of 2011 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2010 passed in MACP No. 74 of 2007 Inre; Sobaran Lal Vs. Avinesh Sharma and Ors, second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2011 passed in MACP No. 75 of 2007 Inre; Avinesh Sharma Vs. Vinod Kumar and anr and third appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2010 passed in MACP No. 73 of 2007. All these judgments and orders have been passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lakhimpur Kheri (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"). 4. Bereft of unnecessary details, it is indicated that an accident took place on 28.12.2006. The claim petition was filed by the claimants for the injuries that had been suffered by them in the said accident. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties fairly submit that the only question involved pertains to the driver of the alleged vehicle with which the accident took place. 6. It is contended that as the learned tribunal has found that the driver of the vehicle with which the accident occurred was not having a valid driving license consequently, the claim has been allowed against the owner of the vehicle, the appellant herein. 7. Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned tribunal had framed the issue no. 2 which was as to "whether at the time of the alleged accident, all papers relating to vehicle in question were valid and effective and the driver of the alleged vehicle had a valid and effective driving license and if so, its effect." 8. Learned tribunal has indicated that although the photocopies of the driving license of one Sri Siraju vide paper no. 43 C has been filed on behalf of the owner of the vehicle/appellant yet from the charge sheet that had been filed in the criminal case that had been lodged, it emerged that the driver of the vehicle was one Sri 498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Gurupej Singh @ Gurupesh Singh who was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident and that he had no valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. 9. The argument of Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant is that once the owner of the vehicle i.e the appellant herein had filed a written statement and had also filed along with the "fehrist" (list of documents), the driving license of Sri Siraju which driving license was valid consequently, the learned tribunal has patently erred in not considering the said driving license to be that of the driver of the vehicle and to have placed reliance on the charge sheet to conclude that it was Sri Gurpej Singh @ Gurpesh Singh who was the driver of the vehicle and he having had no valid and effective driving license and the claim has been allowed against the owner of the vehicle. 10. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Jai deo Singh & 2 Ors- 2010 (28) LCD 499 to contend that this Court has held that the contents of the charge-sheet or the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC or the First Information Report can not be taken as substantive evidence and thus it is argued that the learned tribunal has patently erred in placing reliance on the charge sheet that had been filed against Sri Gurpresh Singh to hold that he was the driver of the vehicle. 11. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 has argued that the learned tribunal has specifically observed in its judgment that while filing the written statement, the owner of the vehicle has not indicated as to who was the driver of the vehicle. It is further argued that although the driving license of one Sri Siraju may have been filed yet no evidence was led by the owner of the vehicle to indicate that in fact it was Sri Siraju who was driving the vehicle on the fateful day and thus there was no evidence to indicate that Sri Siraju was driver of the vehicle and consequently, the learned tribunal has not erred in holding that Sri Siraju cannot be said to be the driver of the vehicle on the said fateful day rather the driver was Sri Gurpesh Singh on the basis of the charge sheet that had been filed by the police to conclude that the driver of the vehicle had no effective and valid driving license on the fateful day. 12. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and perused the records. 13. Perusal of the records it emerges that an accident took place on 28.12.2006 in which the claimants suffered injuries for which they filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned tribunal. 14. A written statement was filed by the owner of the vehicle in which strangely the name of the driver who was driving the vehicle on the fateful day was not disclosed. In the list of documents which was filed by the owner of the vehicle, the driving license of one Sri Siraju was filed. Incidentally, neither the owner of the vehicle nor any other person led evidence to either prove the said driving license or for that matter to indicate as to who was the driver of the vehicle on the fateful day. The learned tribunal has considered this aspect of the matter and on the basis of the charge sheet which had 3 All. Avinash Sharma Vs. Sobhran Lal & Anr. 499 been filed against Sri Gurpej Singh @ Gurpesh Singh has held that he was the driver of the vehicle on the fateful day and was not having a valid and effective driving license and consequently, the owner of the vehicle has been held liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. 15. Perusal of the written statement, a copy of which has also been filed as annexure 2 to the appeal would indicate that it has been indicated in the written statement that the vehicle was being driven by an experienced and qualified driving license holder but strangely the name of the driver has been withheld in the said written statement. 16. Along with the list of documents, the driving license of one Sri Siraju was filed yet nobody put in appearance or led evidence to prove the said driving license nor the owner of the vehicle/ appellant herein led any evidence to prove that on the fateful day, it was the in fact Sri Siraju who was driving the vehicle. In the charge sheet that had been filed by the police it emerged that Sri Gurpej Singh @ Gurpesh Singh was the driver of the vehicle. Thus, before the learned tribunal it was only the charge sheet which has been filed by the police which indicated that the driver of the vehicle was in fact Sri Gurpej Singh @ Gurpesh Singh who was driving the vehicle and in the absence of any evidence being led by the owner of the vehicle to indicate that in fact it was Sri Siraju who was the driver of the vehicle consequently, it emerges that the learned tribunal has correctly concluded that the driver of the vehicle was in fact Sri Gurpej Singh @ Gurpesh Singh who was not having a valid driving license on the fateful day. 17. In this regard, the Court may refer to Section 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872") which states that burden of proof in a suit or proceedings lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. 18. Section 105 of the Act, 1872 provides for burden of proving the existence of circumstance by the person accused within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same code or in any law defining the offence and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. 19. Section 106 of the Act, 1872 states that when any fact, is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 20. Thus, the knowledge of the vehicle being driven by Sri Siraju was exclusively within the knowledge of the appellant herein and as such, the burden of proof lay on him to prove such fact. However, no witness ever put in appearance on behalf of the appellant before the learned tribunal to proof the burden of establishing that the vehicle was being driven by Sri Siraju i.e the driver who was having a valid driving license. 21. Having regard to Section 114 illustration (g) of the Act, 1872, if a party abstains from entering witness box and stating his own case and does not offer himself for cross-examination by the other side, a presumption arises that the case set up by him is not correct. 500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 22. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Gian Chand and Ors- (1997) 7 SCC 558 wherein it has been held as under:- "10...........it has been clearly held by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court that respondent No.1 who was permitted to drive the vehicle by respondent No.9, the insured, was admittedly not having any driving licence. It was not the case of respondent No.9, the insured, that he did not know that respondent No.1 whom the vehicle was being handed over was not having a valid licence. In fact, once he did not step in the witness box to prove his case, an adverse inference had necessarily to be drawn against him to the effect that the vehicle had been handed over by him for being driven by an unlicensed driver, respondent No.1..... (emphasis by the Court) 23. From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment it emerges that in case the appellant was asserting that the vehicle was being driven by Sri Siraju who was having a valid driving license consequently, he should have stepped in the witness box to prove his case and not having done so an adverse interference was necessarily to be drawn against him to the effect that the vehicle was being driven by an unlicensed driver. 24. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Jai Deo Singh (supra) is concerned, suffice it to say that in the said case before the learned tribunal, an application was filed by the owner of the vehicle per which the owner had indicated the name of the driver as Sri Anuj Kumar Bajpai who was possessing a valid driving license but the learned tribunal did not consider that aspect of the matter but considered the name of driver indicated in the charge sheet. 25. As already indicated above, there was no evidence before the learned tribunal to indicate that the driver of the vehicle on the fateful day was Sri Siraju who was a valid driving license more particularly when the name of the driver of the vehicle was suppressed by the owner of the vehicle while filing the written statement. Thus, the judgment of Jai Deo Singh (supra) would have no applicability in the instant case. 26. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ---------- (2025) 3 ILRA 500 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.03.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. Income Tax Appeal No. 86 of 2015 Umang Agarwal ...Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, Suyash Agarwal Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Shubham Agarwal