# Chanda Srivastava & Ors v. Shadab Ahmad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 590
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-24
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 991 of 2017
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chanda-srivastava-ors-v-shadab-ahmad-ors-48807
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section-166 - Appeal - Death Claim -
Rejection of claim petition by the tribunal
- on the ground of technical inspection
report & disbelieved the evidence adduced
by the appellants - under the MV Act,
burden of proof is not as strict in Civil or
Criminal
matters
-
compensatory
jurisprudence discussed - Tribunal fails to
five any co-gent reason to disbelieving the
evidences specially of co-passenger -
driver of car held negligent - hence, court
remitted back the matter to the MACT to
decide the issue of compensation along
with other issues in the light of judgment
of Apex Court & High Court within three
months - Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Appeal - disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.4800 of 2021 decided on 05.04.2022, it
is held that interest awarded by the
tribunal or appellate court under Section
171 of Motor Vehicles Act is not taxable
under the Income Tax Act, 1961

42. The Tribunal shall follow the
guidelines issued by the Apex Court in
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company Private Ltd. v. Union of India
and others vide order dated 27.1.2022, as
the purpose of keeping compensation is
to safeguard the interest of the claimants.
As 8 years have elapsed since occurrence
of accident, the amount be deposited in
the Saving Account of claimants in
Nationalized Bank. The amount shall be
credited in the said account with without
investment as the case may be.

43. We are thankful to learned
counsel for the parties for ably assisting
this court in getting this old appeal
disposed of.
----------
(2022)07ILR A590
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 991 of 2017

Chanda Srivastava & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shadab Ahmad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ankur Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vishesh Kumar Gupta
Civil Law- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section-166 - Appeal - Death Claim -
Rejection of claim petition by the tribunal
- on the ground of technical inspection
report & disbelieved the evidence adduced
by the appellants - under the MV Act,
burden of proof is not as strict in Civil or
Criminal
matters
-
compensatory
jurisprudence discussed - Tribunal fails to
five any co-gent reason to disbelieving the
evidences specially of co-passenger -
driver of car held negligent - hence, court
remitted back the matter to the MACT to
decide the issue of compensation along
with other issues in the light of judgment
of Apex Court & High Court within three
months - Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Appeal - disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Anita Sharma & ors. Vs The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr., (2021) 1 SCC 171

2. Parmeshwari Vs Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC
635

3. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
Subbulakshmi & ors., C.M.A. No. 1482 of 2017
[C.M.P. No. 7919 of 2017. (CMA Sr. No. 76893 of
2016)]

4. Puspabai Purshottam Udeshi Vs Ranjit
Ginning and Pressing Co., 1977 ACJ 343 (SC)

5. Bimla Devi & ors. Vs Himachal RTC, 2009
(13) SCC 530

6. Archit Saini & anr. Vs Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 1143

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by
the appellants against the judgement and
order dated 22.07.2015 passed by Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal/Special Judge
(Anti-Corruption
Act)
Court
No.1,
Varanasi passed in MACP No.83 of 2014
(Smt. Chanda Srivastava and others Vs.
7 All. Chanda Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Shadab Ahmad & Ors.
591
Shadab Ahmad and others), by way of
which,
the
claim
petition
of
the
appellants/claimants was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a
claim petition was filed by the appellants
before the learned Tribunal for seeking
compensation of death of Kripa Shankar
Lal, employee of Income Tax Department,
who died in a road accident. As per the
averments made in the claim petition on
10.10.2013 at about 8:00 pm, the deceased
was travelling in car bearing No. UP 65 CT
3842 with Income Tax Officer Shri
Himanshu
Kumar
from
Varanasi
to
Lucknow in connection with official work.
The driver of the car was driving the
vehicle rashly and negligently. When they
reached at village Asroga, Police Station-
Kudwar, District Sultanpur, the driver of
the car lost the balance and control due to
high speed seeing a truck, coming from the
opposite direction and the car overturned
beside the road. In this accident Kripa
Shankar
Lal
and
Himanshu
Kumar
sustained serious injuries. They were taken
to the government hospital, Sultanpur,
where Kripa Shankar Lal died. The
accident took place due to negligence of car
driver.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted
that
the
learned
Tribunal
misinterpreted the evidence on record as it
did not consider the oral and documentary
evidence
of
claimants
in
the
right
perspective.
Learned
counsel
further
submitted
that
the
principles
of
compensation in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
envisage a beneficial legislation and strict
rules to prove the petition are not required.
Trial before the Tribunal is summary in
nature. Learned counsel submitted that it
was night at the time of accident and an
unknown
truck
came
from
opposite
direction and the eyes of car driver were
dazzled in the headlights of the truck and
since the car driver was moving at a high
speed, he could not control the vehicle and
it overturned after getting disbalanced. It is
next submitted that PW2 Himanshu Kumar
is the eye-witness of the accident because
he himself was travelling in the car. He has
deposed before the learned Tribunal and in
his testimony he has specifically deposed
that the driver of the car became
uncomfortable because his eyes were
dazzled in the light of the truck, coming
from opposite direction and due to high
speed of the car, the driver lost control and
car was overturned. Learned counsel
submitted that the Tribunal has not
believed this part of the evidence, which
could not be disbelieved because there is no
dispute that PW2 was travelling in the car
and he was the best witness to narrate the
manner of accident. It is further submitted
that the car driver has also appeared before
the learned Tribunal as DW2, namely,
Salman Ali. He has deposed that an
unknown truck hit the car from behind.
Learned
Tribunal
rejected
the
claim
petition on the basis of the statement made
by car driver DW2 without considering the
fact that no driver would admit his
negligence. Hence, claim petition was
wrongly rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance
company submitted that first information
report of the accident was lodged at police
station against unknown vehicle and during
investigation no such vehicle could be
traced and investigating officer submitted
final report. Hence, the learned Tribunal
rightly
concluded
that
the
technical
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
inspection report of the car goes to show
that all the damages in the car are on the
rear side which shows that the car was hit
by a vehicle from behind and due to that
reason it was overturned on the right side
of the road. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly
disbelieved the evidence adduced by the
appellants and the claim petition was
rejected.

6. The compensatory jurisprudence
under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of legislation. The burden
of proof in claim petitions is not as strict as
it is in civil or criminal matters. While
deciding the claim petition, the learned
Tribunal had not kept in mind the
principles of standard of proof in motor
accident claim petition.

7. In Anita Sharma and Others Vs.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and
Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171, the Full Bench
of Hon'ble Apex Court narrated the view
taken in Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand,
(2011) 11 SCC 635, that it is very difficult
to trace the witnesses and collecting
information for an accident which took
place many hundreds of kilometers away
and further it is held by Hon'ble Apex
Court in Anita Sharma and Others
(Supra) that in a situation of this nature, the
Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of
the matter. It was necessary to be borne in
mind that strict proof of an accident caused
by a particular bus in a particular manner
may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability.

8. The Division Bench of Madras
High Court also held in Reliance General
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subbulakshmi and
Others, passed in C.MA. No. 1482 of 2017
[C.M.P. No. 7919 of 2017. (CMA Sr. No.
76893 of 2016)] has referred the case of
Puspabai Purshottam Udeshi Vs. Ranjit
Ginning and Pressing Co., 1977ACJ 343
(SC), in which it is observed that the
normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to
prove negligence but as in some cases
considerable hardship is caused to the
plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is
not known to him but is solely within the
knowledge of the defendant who caused it,
the plaintiff can prove the accident but
cannot prove how it happened to establish
negligence on the part of the defendant.
This hardship is sought to be avoided by
applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
The general purport of the words res ipsa
loquitur is that the accident 'speaks for
itself or tells its own story. There are cases
in which the accident speaks for itself so
that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove
the accident and nothing more. It will then
be for the defendant to establish that the
accident happened due to some other cause
than his own negligence. Where the maxim
is applied the burden is on the defendant to
show either that in fact he was not
negligent or that the accident might more
probably have happened in a manner which
did not connote negligence on his part. For
the application of the principle it must be
shown that the car was under the
management of the defendant and that the
accident is such as in ordinary course of
things does not happen if those who had the
management used proper care.

9. In Bimla Devi and Others VS.
Himachal RTC reported in 2009 (13) SCC
530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it
was necessary to be borne in mind that
strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular vehicle in a particular manner
may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to
7 All. Chanda Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Shadab Ahmad & Ors.
593
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been applied.

10. In the case on hand, the appellants
have brought the case that at the time of
accident the eyes of car driver were dazzled
in the headlight of a truck which was
coming from opposite direction and since
the car was being driven at a very high
speed, the driver of the car could not
maintain the balance and lost control and car
was overturned beside the road. Hence, it
does not make any difference if that
unknown truck could not be traced by the
investigating officer and final report was
submitted because it is not a case that
unknown truck hit the car. Learned Tribunal
has relied on technical inspection report of
the car and held that it was having damage
on the rear side. Hence, the manner of the
accident, as contemplated by the appellants,
was not believed. It is also held that the
driver of the car stepped into the witnessbox and deposed that he was driving at a
moderate speed. Had it been so, the car
could not overturn. The technical report
cannot be the sole basis on which the
Tribunal could rely heavily as held in the
judgement of the Apex Court in Archit
Saini
and
Antother
Vs.
Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018
SC 1143. The issue of negligence is also
required in this matter. It is also pertinent to
mention
that
the
informant
of
First
Information Report was also examined on
behalf of the appellants as PW3. Although,
he has written an FIR that when he reached
at the spot of the accident, people told him
that some unknown vehicle had hit the car
but in his own deposition as PW3 before the
learned Tribunal he has also stated that the
accident had taken place because eyes of the
car driver were dazzled in the headlight of
the truck coming from the opposite
direction. Morever, in this case PW2
Himanshu Kumar who is Income Tax
Officer, is the best eye-witness who could
bring the fact before the learned Tribunal as
to how the accident had taken place because
he himself was travelling in the car
alongwith the deceased. He has specifically
deposed that the accident had taken place
due to negligence of the driver of the car
because he was driving at a very high speed
and his eyes were dazzled when the
headlights of the truck, coming from
opposite direction, met with his eyes, due to
high speed he could not control the car and
lost control over it. Learned Tribunal has not
given any justification or cogent reason to
disbelieve evidence. Hence, the learned
Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the
evidence of co-passenger. Hence, there is
sufficient
evidence
on
record
which
convinces us that the accident had taken
place because the car driver was driving at a
very high speed as a result of which he
could not control the car and it was
overturned after being disbalanced. Hence,
the finding of the learned Tribunal is
upturned and we hold the driver of the car
negligent.

11. The deceased was a salaried
person. As the matter is pending since the
year 2014, we remit back the matter to the
learned Tribunal to decide the issue of
compensation alongwith other issues except
the issue Nos.1 and 5 on the basis of
judgements of the Apex Court and this High
Court as the deceased was a salaried person.
Matter be decided within three months from
the date when certified copy of this
judgement is placed before the Tribunal and
the record is received by the Tribunal.

12. Record be sent back to the
Tribunal forthwith.
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)07ILR A594
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1005 of 2013

Ajay Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Jaspreet Singh, Sri Amit Kumar, Sri P.K.
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Manendra Nath Rai, Sri Nandita Bharti,
Sri Pratul Kumar Srivastava

(A) Civil Law - Railway Act, 1989 -
Sections 8, 123(C)(2) & 124-A, Railway
Claims Tribunal Act,1987 Section - 23,
Evidence Act, 1872 Section - 102: -
Claimant's Appeal - rejection of Claim -
Untoward
incident
-
Appreciation
of
evidence - tribunal disbelieved untoward
incident on account of a contradiction in
the testimonies of claimant and eyewitness - which could be the result of an
aberration in perception that the claimant
suffered from in the throes of his agony
post
accident
-
finding
of
tribunal
erroneous. (Para -10)

(B) Civil Law - Railway Act, 1989 - Section
8,
123(C)(2),
124-A,
Railway
Claims
Tribunal Act,1987 Section - 23, Evidence
Act, 1872 Section - 102 - Claimant's
Appeal - rejection of Claim - Untoward
incident
-
Bona
fide
passenger
-
Admittedly, railway ticket recovered from
claimant but it was not placed on record -
as such evidential burden not discharged
by the Railways - merely absence of a
railway ticket with victim of a railway
accident would not show that he was not
a bona fide passenger - as well as
overshooting destination would also not
deprive him of his status as 'bona fide'
passenger - finding of tribunal - perverse.
(Para - 12, 13)

(C) Civil Law- Railway Act, 1989 -
Sections 8, 123(C)(2) & 124-A - Railway
Claims Tribunal Act,1987 - Section - 23 -
Evidence Act, 1872 - Section - 102 -
Claimant's Appeal - Untoward incident -
Quantum of compensation - appellant
suffered a fall from the train - sustained
injuries which can be visualized by the
very natural description of incident -
adverse inference drawn against the
Railways for failure to produce recovered
Railway ticket - no means can be regarded
that appellant was not a bona fide
passenger - finding returned by the
tribunal - cannot be sustained - the
compensation computed at Rs. 4 lacs with
9% rate of interest if not paid within 90
days - appeal allowed with costs.(Para - 17,
19)

Appeal - allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Vaishali Vs U.O.I.(2011 ACJ 106),

2. U.O.I.Vs Rina Devi (2019 (3) SCC 572),

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This is a claimant's appeal, arising out
of a judgment and order dated 16.09.2013,
passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow rejecting the
claim for compensation on account of
injuries sustained in an untoward incident.

2. Ajay Kumar, the sole appellant
here, who preferred the application for
compensation before the Tribunal, said in
his application, raising the claim, that he
was travelling on a second class general
ticket on board the Farakka Express on
March 18, 2007 from Delhi to Kanpur.