# Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Kusma Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 681
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-26
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3816 of 2017
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manager-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-v-smt-kusma-devi-ors-52886
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal was legally justified in fastening
liability upon the insurer to indemnify the
compensation awarded to the claimants, despite
the insurer's objection that the offending vehicle
was allegedly being plied without a valid permit
and that the insurance policy was not issued in
the name of the recorded owner at the time of
the accident, and whether such objections
constituted a valid statutory defence to avoid
liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 66(3), 157 -
UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A -
The appeal was preferred by the insurer of
the offending Vikram tempo challenging
the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Fatehpur,
whereby
compensation was granted to the widow
and children of the deceased, who died in
a road accident on 18 February 2011 - The
claimants asserted that the deceased was
fatally hit by the offending tempo while
walking on the road due to its rash and
negligent driving, whereas the owner and
driver denied the occurrence of the
accident and alleged false implication of
the vehicle - The insurer disputed its
liability on the grounds that the tempo
was allegedly being plied without a valid
permit and that the insurance policy was
not issued in the name of the transferee
owner at the time of the accident - Upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal held the accident to
be proved, attributed negligence to the
driver of the offending vehicle, and
directed the insurer to indemnify the
awarded compensation, leading to the
instant appeal before the High Court.

Held: It is apparent that the owner-transferee
of the offending vehicle has filed all the
documents necessary for plying the offending
auto before the tribunal and it was not proved
that on the date of the accident, the tempo was
being used for carrying passengers for hire and
reward - Further, the insurance company has
not discharged its burden by filing appropriate
evidence that the tempo was not having a valid
permit on the date of the accident - The
requirement of permit arises only when the
tempo was being used for carrying passenger
for hire and reward on the date of the accident,
which the insurance company failed to prove, as
such, there was no legal requirement for the
offending vehicle to possess a valid permit on
the date of the accident - Insurance policy of
the offending tempo was issued to previous
owner of tempo, which was valid for the period
12.11.2010 to 11.11.2011 - It is apparent that
as per registration certificate of tempo, the
ownership
of
the
offending
vehicle
was
transferred on 09.03.2011 which was after the
commencement of the above insurance policy,
but on this ground, the insurance company
cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to
the claimants/third party - In accordance with s.
157 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the insurance
company
is
liable
to
indemnify
the
claimants/third party - Thus, appeal dismissed
and cross - objection allowed - Regarding
compensation, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of ₹10,26,740/- with interest at
7% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till it's actual payment, to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle. [Paras 16, 17] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. v. M/s United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2010) 12 SCC
488; Pushpa @ Leela & others v. Shakuntala
and others (2011) 2 SCC 240; Surendra
Kumar Bhilawe v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(2020) 18 SCC 224; Brij Bihari Gupta v.
Manmet and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1650; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
@ Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130;
Sushil Kumar & Another v. M/S Sampark Lojastic
Pvt. Ltd. & Another, FAFO No.2581 of 2011,
decided on 26.04.2017

Lis

## Text

11 All. Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusma Devi & Ors.
681
Section 96 of the Old Act. Similar question
had arisen for consideration of the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of K.V.
Thimmegowda v. Kamalamma [ I.L.R. 1991
KAR 4127.] and the same had been
answered holding:

"An Insurance Company is liable
to pay compensation in respect of the injury
to or death of a third party, caused by a
motor accident by a motor vehicle, which is
a stage carriage while plying or being used
lawfully otherwise than as a stage carriage,
at a public place, even if such public place
does not lie on the route in respect of which
it is permitted to operate as a stage
carriage."

Therefore,
in
law
the
appellants/petitioners-insurers are not
exempt from their liability to pay
compensation under their respective ?Act
Policies? by mere reason of ?contract
carriages? in question being plied as
?stage carriages? in breach of their
permit condition since such a defence
plea is not permissible under sub-section
(2) of Section 149 of the Act. If the said
vehicles were found to have been plying
in breach of their permits condition, it is
open for the concerned authorities under
the Act to take appropriate action as is
permissible
under
other
provisions
thereof viz., Sections 86, 177 and 192 as
the case may be. Therefore, we find the
contention of the learned Counsel for
appellants/Writ Petitioners without force
and
weight
and
the
appeals
are,
therefore, bound to fail.

24. Therefore, from the case of
Chandamma (supra), it can be deduced
that the insurance company cannot escape
its liability to compensate on the ground
that the offending vehicle was used in
violation of the terms and conditions of the
insurance policy, i.e., as a stage carriage
when it was insured only as a contract
carriage.

25. No other issue has been pressed by
the learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company.

26.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
discussion, this appeal has got no merit and
is liable to be dismissed at the admission
stage.

27. The appeal is hereby dismissed
at the admission stage.

28. The impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal dated 30.07.2025 is
affirmed.

29. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by appellant to the
Tribunal concerned, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 681
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3816 of 2017

Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Kusma Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Amit Manohar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar, Rahul Mishra, Ram
Lakhan Deobanshi
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal was legally justified in fastening
liability upon the insurer to indemnify the
compensation awarded to the claimants, despite
the insurer's objection that the offending vehicle
was allegedly being plied without a valid permit
and that the insurance policy was not issued in
the name of the recorded owner at the time of
the accident, and whether such objections
constituted a valid statutory defence to avoid
liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 66(3), 157 -
UP Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A -
The appeal was preferred by the insurer of
the offending Vikram tempo challenging
the award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims
Tribunal,
Fatehpur,
whereby
compensation was granted to the widow
and children of the deceased, who died in
a road accident on 18 February 2011 - The
claimants asserted that the deceased was
fatally hit by the offending tempo while
walking on the road due to its rash and
negligent driving, whereas the owner and
driver denied the occurrence of the
accident and alleged false implication of
the vehicle - The insurer disputed its
liability on the grounds that the tempo
was allegedly being plied without a valid
permit and that the insurance policy was
not issued in the name of the transferee
owner at the time of the accident - Upon
appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, the Tribunal held the accident to
be proved, attributed negligence to the
driver of the offending vehicle, and
directed the insurer to indemnify the
awarded compensation, leading to the
instant appeal before the High Court.

Held: It is apparent that the owner-transferee
of the offending vehicle has filed all the
documents necessary for plying the offending
auto before the tribunal and it was not proved
that on the date of the accident, the tempo was
being used for carrying passengers for hire and
reward - Further, the insurance company has
not discharged its burden by filing appropriate
evidence that the tempo was not having a valid
permit on the date of the accident - The
requirement of permit arises only when the
tempo was being used for carrying passenger
for hire and reward on the date of the accident,
which the insurance company failed to prove, as
such, there was no legal requirement for the
offending vehicle to possess a valid permit on
the date of the accident - Insurance policy of
the offending tempo was issued to previous
owner of tempo, which was valid for the period
12.11.2010 to 11.11.2011 - It is apparent that
as per registration certificate of tempo, the
ownership
of
the
offending
vehicle
was
transferred on 09.03.2011 which was after the
commencement of the above insurance policy,
but on this ground, the insurance company
cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to
the claimants/third party - In accordance with s.
157 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, the insurance
company
is
liable
to
indemnify
the
claimants/third party - Thus, appeal dismissed
and cross - objection allowed - Regarding
compensation, the claimants are entitled to
compensation of ₹10,26,740/- with interest at
7% per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till it's actual payment, to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle. [Paras 16, 17] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. v. M/s United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2010) 12 SCC
488; Pushpa @ Leela & others v. Shakuntala
and others (2011) 2 SCC 240; Surendra
Kumar Bhilawe v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(2020) 18 SCC 224; Brij Bihari Gupta v.
Manmet and others 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1650; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680; Magma
General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
@ Chuhru Ram & others, (2018) 18 SCC 130;
Sushil Kumar & Another v. M/S Sampark Lojastic
Pvt. Ltd. & Another, FAFO No.2581 of 2011,
decided on 26.04.2017

List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, UP Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988;
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Liability only
Policy; Transport Vehicle; Offending vehicle;
Rash and negligent driving; Claim petition;
11 All. Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusma Devi & Ors.
683
Indemnify; Terms and conditions of policy; Valid
permit; Burden of proof; Written statement;
Oral
evidence;
Documentary
evidence;
Eyewitness; Cross-examination; Breach of policy
conditions;
Registered
owner;
Transfer
of
ownership; Third party; Statutory liability; S.
157 of Motor Vehicles Act, Dismissal of appeal;
Affirmation
of
award;
Modification
of
compensation; Interest and enhancement of
compensation.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 3816 of 2017
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
31.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Special Judge (E.C. Act) / Additional
District Judge, Fatehpur, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 170 of 2011

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellants:
Amit Manohar

Advs. for the Respondents:
Mohd. Asim Zulfiqar, Rahul Mishra, Ram Lakhan
Deobanshi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been filed by the insurer of the offending
Tempo No.UP-70-AT-0110, against the
impugned judgment and award dated
31.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal / Special Judge (E.C.
Act)
/
Additional
District
Judge,
Fatehpur, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 170 of 2011 (Smt. Kusma
Devi & others Vs. Irshad Ahmed &
others), whereby, for the untimely death
of Chhotey Lal Sharma (deceased) in a
road
accident
that
occurred
on
18.02.2011,
a
compensation
of
Rs.2,71,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum has been awarded
to the claimants (wife and children),
which has been ordered to be indemnified
by the insurer of the offending Tempo
No.UP-70-AT-0110.

2. Learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company submitted that on the
date of the accident, the offending
Vikram tempo No. UP-70-AT-0110 was
being driven in violation of the terms and
conditions
of
the
insurance
policy
without a valid permit, as such, the
insurance company was not liable to
indemnify
the
claimants,
the
compensation awarded to them by the
tribunal. It was further submitted that the
insurance policy was not issued in the
name of the owner of the tempo/insured
Irshad Ahmed, as such, on this ground
also the insurance company was not
liable to indemnify the claimants.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimants-respondent submitted that the
burden to prove that the offending vehicle
was being plied without permit lies upon
the insurer of the offending vehicle. It
was further submitted that there was no
evidence on record to prove that the
offending vehicle was carrying passenger
for hire and reward on the date of
accident
as
such,
there
was
no
requirement of permit. It was further
submitted that under Section 157 of the
Motor Vehicles Act,1988, even if the
policy has not been assigned in favour of
the insured Irshad Ahmed, even then the
third
party
is
liable
to
claim
compensation from the insurer of the
offending vehicle.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for
both the sides, perused the impugned
judgment and the record of the lower court.

5. From the perusal of the record of
the lower court, it is evident that the owner
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Irshad Ahmed and driver Nisar Ahmed
contested the claim petition and filed their
joint written statement before the tribunal
in which they denied the accident and
submitted that at the time of the alleged
accident the offending vehicle was under
repair at a mechanic shop, which was
fraudulently involved in the accident. It
was further submitted by them that the
offending vehicle was having all the valid
documents and was also insured with the
Oriental Insurance Company limited from
12.11.2010 to 11.11.2011, whereas the
alleged accident occurred on 18.02.2011. It
was further submitted that the driver was
also having a valid and effective driving
license on the date of the accident.

6. The owner of the offending vehicle
Irshad Ahmed has filed the photocopy of
the
registration
certificate
(R.C.)
of
offending vehicle UP70-AT-0110 which
discloses
that
it
was
a
three
wheeler(passenger) Auto Rickshaw having
unladen weight of 550 KG which was
having a seating capacity of seven
(including driver) whose fitness was valid
upto 20.07.2011. It is also apparent that the
owner has filed the certificate of fitness of
the above vehicle which discloses that it
was a transport vehicle. The owner has also
filed the photocopy of the insurance policy
issued by the Oriental Insurance Company
which discloses that the vehicle was
insured from 12.11.2010 to 11.11.2011
under the 'Liability only Policy' for
carrying six passengers. The insurance
policy records that the vehicle was to be
plied under the permit defined under
Section 66(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988.

7. The lower court record discloses
that the insurance company has filed the
attested copy of the insurance policy as
well as the verification of R.C. of the
offending
vehicle
issued
by
Tax/
Registering
Authority,
motor
Vehicle
Department, Fatehpur (UP) which also
discloses that its unladen weight was only
550 KG, whose fitness was valid upto
24.07.2012,
taxes
were
paid
upto
31.12.2011 and also the vehicle was
insured from 11.11.2011 to 10.11.2012.

8. The claimants examined widow of
the deceased Kusma Devi as PW-1, eye
witness Ramendra Kumar as PW-2 and
Rakesh Tiwari as PW-3.

9. PW-1 has very fairly accepted that
she was not an eye witness of the accident.
Similarly, PW-3 has proved the income of
the deceased, who was also not an eye
witness of the accident.

10. Eye witness Ramendra Kumar
PW-2 has deposed that on 18.02.2011 at
about 05.00 PM when he was going on foot
with his father Chhotey Lal then Vikram
tempo
No.UP70-AT-0110
came
from
behind, which was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner, which hit his father
Chhotey Lal, who fell down and was
crushed by the tempo. Later, the offending
vehicle was apprehended by other persons
and Chhotey Lal was taken to the District
hospital where he was declared dead.

11. It is apparent that PW-2 has not
been cross examined by the insurance
company as to whether the offending
Vikram tempo was carrying any passenger
for hire and reward at the time of the
accident or not and if it was carrying any
passenger, then how many of them were
sitting in it, at that time. There is absolutely
no evidence on record to prove that the
offending vehicle was being used for
carrying passenger for hire and reward at
11 All. Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusma Devi & Ors.
685
the time of the accident. It is pertinent to
mention here that the owner and driver of
the offending vehicle denied the accident
and submitted that the tempo was standing
at the shop of the mechanic for repair.

12. The Apex Court in the case of
Kamala Mangalal Vayani & Ors. Vs. M/s
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors
(2010) 12 SCC 488 held as under:-

6. As noticed above, the ownercum-driver had remained ex parte. Once it
was established that the vehicle was
comprehensively insured with the insurer to
cover the passenger risk, the burden to
prove that it was not liable in spite of such
a policy, shifted to the insurer. The
claimants are not expected to prove that the
vehicle had a valid permit, nor prove that
the owner of the vehicle did not commit
breach of any of the terms of the policy. It
is for the insurer who denies its liability
under the policy, to establish that in spite of
the comprehensive insurance policy issued
by it, it is not liable on account of the
requirements of the policy not being
fulfilled.

7. In this case, the insurer
produced
a
certified
copy
of
the
proceedings of the Registering Authority
and
Assistant
Regional
Transport
Authority, Bangalore dated 7-7-1990 to
show that the application for registration of
the vehicle filed by the third respondent
was rejected with an observation that it
was open to the applicant to apply for
registration in the appropriate class. But
that only proved that on 7-7-1990, the
vehicle did not have a permit. But that does
not prove that the vehicle did not have a
permit on 27-7-1990, when the accident
occurred. It was open to the insurer to
apply to the transport authority concerned
for a certificate to show the date on which
the permit was granted and that as on the
date of the accident, the vehicle did not
have a permit, and produce the same as
evidence. It failed to do so.

8. The High Court committed an
error in expecting the claimants to prove
that the vehicle possessed a valid permit.
We are of the view that there was no
justification for the High Court to interfere
with the judgment and awards of the
Tribunal in the absence of relevant
evidence.

13. The Apex Court in the case of
Pushpa @ Leela & others Vs. Shakuntala
and others (2011) 2 SCC 240, held that if
the transfer of ownership of vehicle occurs
prior to accident, but neither transferor nor
transfee took any steps to change the name
of owner in registration certificate, hence in
view of the said omission transferor must
be deemed to continue as the owner of the
vehicle for the purposes of the Act, even
though under the civil law he ceased to be
its owner after its sale. It was held that the
transferor was liable to pay compensation.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Surendra Kumar Bhilawe vs New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 18 SCC 224,
held as under:-

45. The judgment of this Court in
Complete Insulations (P) Ltd. v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. [Complete Insulations
(P) Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
(1996) 1 SCC 221] was rendered in the
context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939
which has been repealed and replaced by
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As observed
in the said judgment itself, under Section
103-A of the old Act, the insurer had the
right to refuse to transfer the certificate of
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
insurance and/or the insurance policy.
However, Section 157 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 introduces a deeming
provision whereby the transfer of the
certificate of insurance and the policy of
insurance are deemed to have been made,
where the vehicle along with the insurance
policy is transferred by the owner to
another person. This provision has taken
away the insurer's right of refusal to
transfer the policy certificate of insurance.
which was there under the old Act. The
judgment of this Court in T.V. Jose v.
Chacko P.M. [T.V. Jose v. Chacko P.M.,
(2001) 8 SCC 748 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 94]
was also rendered in the context of the
Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.

46. In Pushpa v. Shakuntala
[Pushpa v. Shakuntala, (2011) 2 SCC 240 :
(2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 399 : (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 682] , the question before this Court
was, whether liability to pay compensation
to third-parties as determined by the Motor
Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal in case
of an accident, was that of the purchaser of
the vehicle alone, or whether the liability of
the recorded owner of the vehicle was coextensive, and from the recorded owner it
would pass on to the insurer of the vehicle.
This Court found that the person whose
name continued in the records of the
registering authority as the owner of the
truck was equally liable for payment of the
compensation,
having
regard
to
the
provisions of Section 2(30) read with
Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and since an insurance policy had been
taken out in the name of the recorded
owner, he was indemnified and the insurer
would be liable to satisfy the third-party
claims.

47. In Naveen Kumar v. Vijay
Kumar [Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar,
(2018) 3 SCC 1 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 661] , a three-Judge
Bench of this Court held that in view of the
definition of the expression ?owner? in
Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, it is the person in whose name the
motor vehicle stands registered, who, for the
purposes of the said Act, would be treated as
the owner of the vehicle. Where the
registered owner purports to transfer the
vehicle, but continues to be reflected in the
records of the registering authority as the
owner of the vehicle, he would not stand
absolved of his liability as owner.

48. The judgment of this Court in
Pushpa v. Shakuntala [Pushpa v. Shakuntala,
(2011) 2 SCC 240 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 399 :
(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 682] and Naveen Kumar
v. Vijay Kumar [Naveen Kumar v. Vijay
Kumar, (2018) 3 SCC 1 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ)
1 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 661] were rendered in
the context of liability to satisfy third-party
claims and as such distinguishable factually.
However, the dictum of this Court that the
registered owner continues to remain owner
and when the vehicle is insured in the name
of the registered owner, the insurer would
remain liable notwithstanding any transfer,
would apply equally in the case of claims
made by the insured himself in case of an
accident. If the insured continues to remain
the owner in law in view of the statutory
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and in particular Section 2(30) thereof, the
insurer cannot evade its liability in case of an
accident.

15. The Apex Court in the case of Brij
Bihari Gupta vs Manmet and others 2025
SCC OnLine SC 1650 , held as under:-

10.
There
is
considerable
reliance placed by the insurer on the fact
that the appellant had received the vehicle
11 All. Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusma Devi & Ors.
687
from the Magistrate's Court, asserting his
ownership. The order directing handing
over the vehicle to the appellant is
produced as Annexure-R/4, in IA No.
190313/2022, where it is indicated that
even at that point the registered owner's
name was not changed. The registered
owner was present before the Magistrate as
we see from the order and while ordering
handing
over
of
the
vehicle,
the
applicant/appellant was directed to change
the ownership within 30 days. Hence
obviously the balance consideration of Rs.
10,000/- had not been paid till that date.
The transfer of the registration as per
Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
requires the transferee to report the fact of
transfer in the prescribed form to the
Registering
Authority
within
whose
jurisdiction the transfer is affected within
14 days of the transfer. There is no
contention raised by the registered owner
that he made such a report as required
under Section 50(1)(a)(i) of the Act. Hence
the ownership was with the registered
owner even at the time of the accident and
it is his liability to compensate the victims
in the accident, which also has to be
indemnified by the insurer. We also notice
that in Naveen Kumar[Naveen Kumar vs.
Vijay Kumar & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 1] the
definition of owner in the Act of 1988 was
interpreted to facilitate fulfilment of the
object of the law, which was not to burden
the claimant to follow the trail of
successive transfers. The liability to pay
falls squarely on the registered owner, even
if there has been successive transfers which
has to be indemnified by the insurer.

16. It is apparent that the ownertransferee of the offending vehicle has filed
all the documents necessary for plying the
offending auto before the tribunal and it
was not proved that on the date of the
accident, the tempo was being used for
carrying passengers for hire and reward.
Further, the insurance company has not
discharged its burden by filing appropriate
evidence that the tempo was not having a
valid permit on the date of the accident. It is
to be noted that the requirement of permit
arises only when the tempo was being used
for carrying passenger for hire and reward on
the date of the accident, which the insurance
company failed to prove, as such, there was
no legal requirement for the offending
vehicle to possess a valid permit on the date
of the accident.

17. It is also evident that the insurance
policy of the offending tempo was issued to
previous owner of tempo Meera Singh
Gautam, which was valid for the period
12.11.2010 to 11.11.2011. It is also
apparent that as per registration certificate
of tempo, the ownership of the offending
vehicle was transferred to Irshad Ahmed on
09.03.2011
which
was
after
the
commencement of the above insurance
policy, but on this ground, the insurance
company cannot avoid its liability to pay
compensation to the claimants/third party.
It is not the case of the insurance company
that the offending vehicle was not insured
with it on the date of the accident. In
accordance with S. 157 of the Motor
Vehicles Act,1988, the insurance company
is liable to indemnify the claimants/third
party.

18. No other issue was pressed by the
counsel
for
the
appellant-insurance
company.

19. In view of the aforesaid analysis,
this appeal has got no merit and is liable to
be dismissed.

20. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

Order on Cross Objection No.39 of
2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the crossobjector and learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company.

2. According to the office report, there
is a delay of 2357 days in filing the crossobjection. However, since the appeal of the
Insurance Company, FAFO No. 3816 of
2017, is pending, as such, the delay in
filing the cross-objection is liable to be
condoned and is accordingly condoned.

3. The instant cross-objection has been
filed for enhancement of compensation by
the claimants in FAFO No.3816 of 2017.

4. Learned counsel for the claimantsobjectors submitted that the deceased
Chhotey Lal was a professional driver,
aged about 53 years, who was employed
with Rajrani Cold Storage and Ice Plant
(Private) Ltd., who was drawing salary of
Rs.6,300/- per month at the time of the
accident, which was also proved by
examining PW-3 Rakesh Tiwari before the
Tribunal
but
still
the
Tribunal
has
disbelieved his evidence and has awarded
compensation to the claimants by assessing
his monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, which is
inadequate. It was further submitted that
since there were five dependents of the
deceased, only 1/4th amount was required
to be deducted towards personal expenses
of the deceased, but the Tribunal has
deducted 1/3rd amount, which is erroneous.
It was further submitted that the Tribunal
has not awarded any compensation towards
future prospects of the deceased and has
also awarded less amount of compensation
towards non pecuniary heads and has also
awarded less interest of 6% per annum on
the compensation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent-Insurance Company submitted
that since the salary register of the
employer of the deceased was not produced
before the Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal
has not committed any error in discarding
the evidence of PW-3 and assessing the
compensation only by taking the salary of
the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month.
Learned counsel further submitted that the
Tribunal has awarded the right amount of
compensation,
which
warrants
no
enhancement from this Court in exercise of
its appellate jurisdiction.

6. I have heard the learned counsel of
both the sides, perused the impugned
judgment and the record of the lower court.

7. It is apparent that the claimants
have filed the salary certificate of the
deceased, which was issued by Rajrani
Cold Storage and Ice Plant (Private) Ltd.,
which discloses that the deceased was
employed from the month of February,
2010, who was being paid salary of
Rs.6,300/- per month as driver. The salary
certificate further discloses that previously
the deceased was employed as a driver with
Uttar
Pradesh
State
Road
Transport
Corporation (UPSRTC).

8. The claimants also examined
Rakesh Tiwari as PW-3, who was the
accountant of Rajrani Cold Storage and Ice
Plant (Private) Ltd., who deposed that
Chhotey Lal Sharma was appointed as
driver with his firm in February, 2010, who
was driving vehicles of the firm, who was
an experienced driver, who was being paid
salary at the rate of Rs. 6,300/- per month.
11 All. Manager The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kusma Devi & Ors.
689
He further deposed that the salary was paid
by the firm, which was duly accounted by
him. He further deposed that Shri Sushil
Kumar Tripathi was the Managing Director
of the firm and the firm was involved in
manufacturing of milk powder, butter milk
etc. which was sent to different States for
sale and on the vehicles of the firm,
Chhotey Lal Sharma was employed as a
driver, who previously worked as a driver
with UPSRTC also.

9. In cross-examination, this witness
deposed that in February, 2010 about 20-25
persons were employed in the firm, whose
presence was recorded in a register by the
Manager. He accepted that there was a
salary register on which the signature of
employees was obtained at the time of
payment of salary, which he had not
brought to the Court.

10. It is evident that PW-3 has proved
the occupation and salary of the deceased
Chhotey Lal Sharma, but still the Tribunal
has disbelieved his evidence merely on the
basis that he failed to produce any solid
documentary evidence of the employment
and payment of salary.

11. It was proved by the claimants that
the deceased was a professional driver, who
was
previously
employed
with
the
UPSRTC, as such, his competency to drive
vehicles, cannot be challenged by the
insurance company. It is also apparent that
PW-3 has proved the salary certificate of the
deceased, which discloses that he was being
paid a salary of Rs.6,300/- per month, which
cannot be disbelieved. The Tribunal has
recorded a perverse finding by disbelieving
the salary certificate. In the instant case, the
claimants are entitled to get compensation on
the basis of the salary certificate of the
deceased, according to which he was paid
salary @ Rs.6,300/- per month, at the time of
the accident.

12. As per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998, the claimants are
entitled to compensation for the future
prospects of the deceased at the rate of 20%
of the salary of the deceased, since the
deceased was above 50 years on the date of
the accident.

13. The Constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors.(2017) 16 SCC 680 has awarded loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-
each towards loss of estate and funeral
expenses, which is to be enhanced at the rate
of 10% after every three years.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & others,
(2018) 18 SCC 130, has awarded Rs.40,000/-
each towards spousal consortium, parental
consortium and filial consortium.

15. Further, as per the decision of the
Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), if the
number of claimants-dependents is five, then
only 1/4th amount is required to be deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased,
but in this case, the Tribunal has deducted
1/3rd amount, which is erroneous. Further, as
per Rule 220-A of the UP Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998, the claimants are entitled to get
interest on compensation at the rate of 7% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition, but in this case, the Tribunal has
only awarded interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, which is required to be enhanced.

16. A Division Bench of this Court in
FAFO No.2581 of 2011, Sushil Kumar &
Another vs. M/S Sampark Lojastic Pvt.
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ltd. & Another, decided on 26.04.2017 has
held that even if the accident occurred prior
to 26.09.2011, the claimants are entitled to
compensation on future prospects as per
amended Rule 220-A of the UP Motor
Vehicle Rules, 1998, since it is a beneficial
legislation.

17. In view of the above statutory law
and precedents of the Apex Court, the
compensation payable to the claimants is
redetermined as under:-

S.N
o.
Compensati
on Heads
Amount
Awarde
d(in Rs.)
In
Accordan
ce
with.

1.
Monthly
income of
deceased

6,300/-
As per the
salary
certificate
of
the
deceased

2.
Annual
Income of
deceased

6,300X1
2=75,600
/-

As per the
salary
certificate
of
the
deceased

3.
Less 1/4th
deduction
towards self
expenses(6
dependents)
18,900/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)
4.
Net annual
income on
which
claimants
were
dependent
75,60018,900=5
6,700/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

5.
Add future
prospects
@20% since
age of
deceased
was above
50 years
11,340/-

Rule 220-A
of
UP
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,1998

6.
Total annual
68,040/-
Pranay
dependency
of claimants
on deceased

Sethi(supr
a)

7.
Multiplier
applied since
age of
deceased
was between
51-55 years
at the time
of accident
11
Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

8.
Total loss of
dependency
to the
claimants

68,040X
11=7,48,
440/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

9.
Loss of
consortium
@Rs.40,000/
-each,
increased by
10% after
every 3
years (5
claimants)
48,400X
5=2,42,4
00/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)
and
Magma
General
Insurance
Co.
Ltd.
(supra)

10.
Loss of
estate @
Rs.15,000/-
increased by
10% after
every 3
years.

18,150/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

11.
Funeral
Expenses@
Rs.15,000/-
increased by
10% after
every 3
years.
18,150/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

12.
Total
compensatio
n

10,26,74
0/-

Pranay
Sethi(supr
a)

18. In this way, the claimants are
entitled
to
total
compensation
of
11 All. State of U.P. Vs. Ram Raksh Pal & Ors.
691
Rs.10,26,740/- alongwith interest @ 7%
per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition till it's actual payment,
which is to be indemnified by the insurer
of the offending Vikram tempo UP70AT-0110.

19. The cross objection is allowed.
The award of the Tribunal is modified to
the above extent.

20. If any amount has been paid by the
insurance company previously, then the
insurance company is entitled to adjust it
accordingly. The insurance company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount of
compensation before the concerned tribunal
within two months. The tribunal will be at
liberty
to
proportionally
award
the
enhanced amount of compensation to the
claimants keeping in view their age and
dependency.

21. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company
to
the
tribunal
concerned,
forthwith.

22. Office is directed to return the
original
record
of
the
lower
court,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 691
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Government Appeal No. 71 of 1988

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Raksh Pal & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Viresh Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to whether the learned Sessions
Judge committed any legal infirmity, perversity,
or manifest error in acquitting the accused -
respondents of charge u/s 302 read with s. 34
of Indian Penal Code, and whether the
appreciation of evidence by Trial Court was so
unreasonable
or
contrary
to
the
settled
principles governing appeals against acquittal as
to warrant interference by the High Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s 378 of
Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnotes
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302/34 - Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313 - The
prosecution case originates from a written
report
dated
19.09.1984
lodged
by
Hemant Kumar, son of the deceased Ram
Kripal Gupta, alleging that due to longstanding
civil
and
criminal
disputes
relating to property and construction
matters between the deceased and the
accused persons, namely Ram Rakshpal
Gupta, Rama Kant and Diwan Chand
Thareja, relations between the parties had
become strained - It was alleged that on
the said date, while the deceased was
returning home on a bicycle along with his
sons and a companion after visiting the
Moradabad Development Authority, two
motorcycles intercepted them near F.T.S.
College Road, whereupon the accused
Rama Kant and Diwan Chand Thareja
allegedly fired at the deceased with
pistols, causing his instantaneous death,
after which all the accused fled from the
spot - On the basis of the said report, an
FIR
u/s
302
IPC
was
registered,
investigation ensued, and charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused, who
were tried u/s 302/34 IPC and ultimately
acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge,
Rampur, vide judgment dated 08.10.1987,
giving rise to instant government appeal
u/s 378 Cr.P.C.