# National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko v. Manorama & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 969
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-18
- **Case number:** First Appeal from Order No. 198 of 2024
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/national-insurance-co-ltd-lko-v-manorama-ors-54601
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Sections
165 & 166 - Claim proceeding - Negligent
driving - Effect of failure in not proving -
Ground was taken by the Insurance
company to the effect that the claimants
failed to prove that the vehicle having
been driven negligently and rashly -
Acceptability - Held, a perusal of the claim
application and the written St.ment would
duly
indicate
that
there
was
clear
negligence on the part of the driver.
Consequently
keeping
in
view
the
specific findings of fact as given by
learned Tribunal, the said ground is
rejected. (Para 21 and 25)

B. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of accident -
Filing
of
charge-sheet
against
a
particular person - Relevance - Strict
proof, how far required - Bimla Devi's
case and Mangla Ram's case relied upon
- Held, the chargesheet indicates that
on account of negligence of the driver
Shri Shitla Prasad, who was the driver of
the concerned vehicle, the said accident
had taken place. It is also indicated that
the truck concerned has been released
on the orders passed by the learned
court
-
Learned
tribunal
has
not
committed any error in arriving at a
finding of the deceased having died on
account of an accident involving the
truck. (Para 27, 28 and 33)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko Vs. Manorama & Ors.
969
would be closer to the then prevalent rate
of interest i.e. in the year 2015."

24. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the appeal is allowed. The
amount towards loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses as
awarded by the learned Tribunal stand
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- &
Rs.15,000/- respectively. Each of the
claimants would be entitled to loss of
consortium of Rs.40,000/-. Rate of
interest on the amount as has been
awarded by the learned Tribunal is also
enhanced to 9% per annum. As regards
the future prospects, the notional income
is increased by 30% being the future
prospect. Said amount would be added to
the notional income of the deceased,
upon which deduction as done by the
learned Tribunal on actual income would
be done. The Insurance Company is
directed
to
calculate
the
enhanced
amounts as observed by this Court in
preceding paragraphs keeping in view the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Pranay Sethi (supra),
Savita (supra) and Babita (supra) within
a period of two weeks from the date a
certified copy of this order is produced
before it and deposit the same before the
learned Tribunal within a period of four
weeks thereafter. The learned trial court
shall ensure that the payment of the
aforesaid
amount
be
made
to
the
appellants within next four weeks of the
amount being deposited before it, in
accordance with law.

25. Let trial court record be returned.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 969
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.04.2025

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 198 of 2024

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko
 ... Appellant
Versus
Manorama & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mrs. Pooja Arora

Counsel for the Respondent:
Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Sections
165 & 166 - Claim proceeding - Negligent
driving - Effect of failure in not proving -
Ground was taken by the Insurance
company to the effect that the claimants
failed to prove that the vehicle having
been driven negligently and rashly -
Acceptability - Held, a perusal of the claim
application and the written St.ment would
duly
indicate
that
there
was
clear
negligence on the part of the driver.
Consequently
keeping
in
view
the
specific findings of fact as given by
learned Tribunal, the said ground is
rejected. (Para 21 and 25)

B. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of accident -
Filing
of
charge-sheet
against
a
particular person - Relevance - Strict
proof, how far required - Bimla Devi's
case and Mangla Ram's case relied upon
- Held, the chargesheet indicates that
on account of negligence of the driver
Shri Shitla Prasad, who was the driver of
the concerned vehicle, the said accident
had taken place. It is also indicated that
the truck concerned has been released
on the orders passed by the learned
court
-
Learned
tribunal
has
not
committed any error in arriving at a
finding of the deceased having died on
account of an accident involving the
truck. (Para 27, 28 and 33)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
List of Cases cited:-

1. First Appeal From Order No. 460 of 2018;
Kamleshwar Tiwari Vs Abhishek Verma & ors.
decided on 06.02.2025

2. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Smt.
Hem Lata & ors.; 2021(2) T.A.C. 366 (All.)

3. Parshuram Pal & ors. Vs Ram Lakhan and
another; 2013 (98) ALR 589

4. Minu B. Mehta Vs Balkrishna Ramchandra
Nayan; AIR 1977 SC 1248

5. Surinder Kumar Arora & anr Vs Dr. Manoj
Bisla & ors.; AIR 2012 SC 1918

6. Bimla Devi & ors. Vs Himachal Road
Transport Corporation & ors.; 2009 (13) SCC
530

7. Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. & ors.; 2018 (5) SCC 656

8. Dr. Anoop Kumar Bhattacharya & anr. Vs
National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2021 (12) ADJ 596

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and Shri Ravindra Kumar
Dwivedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Despite notices having been served
on respondents no. 4 and 5 as per the report
dated 28.08.2024 nobody has put on
appearance on their behalf.

3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to
hear and decide the matter finally.

4. Under challenge is the judgement
and award dated 12.04.2024 passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
District Sultanpur in Claim Petition No.
264 of 2017 in re: Manorama and others vs
Shitla Prasad and others. By the said award
learned tribunal has partly allowed the
claim petition filed by the claimants and
has awarded certain compensation. Being
aggrieved instant appeal has been filed.

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the
fact as set forth by learned counsel for the
appellants is that one Shri Ram Kailash,
who was working as a Khalasi on a truck
bearing no. UP 44 AT 0404, died on
27.05.2017. The claimants, of which
claimant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased,
the claimant no. 2 is daughter of the
deceased and claimant no. 3 is the mother
of the deceased, filed the claim application
before the learned tribunal. The case set
forth by the claimants before learned
tribunal was that the deceased Ram Kailash
was working as a Khalasi and was in
receipt of Rs 6000 per month paid towards
his wages and Rs 3000 towards his
fooding. He was going on the truck in
question when driver of the said vehicle
askedRam Kailash to clean certain parts
of concrete that had got stuck in the back
wheel of the truck. ShriRam Kailash died
on account of an accident involving a truck
and died on the spot. The claimants filed
the post mortem report as well as FIR that
had
been
lodged.
The
police
filed
chargesheet in which driver of the truck
namely Shri Shitla Prasad had been named.

6. Learned Tribunal had framed an
issue as to whether on 27.05.2017 at 11:30
AM the deceased was cleaning the backwheel of the truck no.UP 44 AT 0404 and
on account of the negligence of the driver,
died.

7. Learned Tribunal has considered
the said issue as per the averments made in
the written statement that had been filed on
behalf of the driver and owner of the
vehicle (one written statement filed jointly
4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko Vs. Manorama & Ors.
971
on their behalf) and also considered the
contradiction as appeared in the said
written statement of an averment having
been made in paragraph 4 of the written
statement that the deceased died on account
of an accident involving "a truck" and the
averment made in paragraph 5 that he died
on account of the negligence of the truck
driver and the learned Tribunal was of the
view that on account of the negligence of
the Driver which resulted in the accident,
the truck Driver namely Shitla Prasad did
not inform the police. The said incident
itself indicates that it was on account of
negligence of the driver himself i.e. Shri
Shitla Prasad that the said accident
occurred. Learned trial court has also
considered the chargesheet which has been
filed against the driver concerned and thus
arrived at a conclusion that the accident had
taken place from the said vehicle on
account of negligence of the driver
concerned
and
has
awarded
the
compensation after considering the other
issues
including
the
quantum
of
compensation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant
has raised the following grounds to
challenge the impugned judgment namely:

(a) that the claim application
having been filed under the provisions of
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle, 1988
which itself indicates that an application for
compensation arising out of accident of the
nature specified under Section 165 of the
Act, 1988 is to be filed by claimants and
Section 165 of the Act 1988 would have to
necessarily include the accident to have
arisen on account of negligence of the
driver and the vehicle having been driven
negligently and rashly which the claimants
failed to prove before the learned tribunal
as emerges from perusal of the written
statement that had been filed by the owner
and the driver as well as the statement of
the wife of the deceased and the post
mortem report which indicates that the
deceased was not identified at that stretch
of time. Reliance has also been placed on
the pleadings in this regard, and

(b) that in the written statement
that was filed by the owner and the driver it
was indicated that the accident had
occurred from "a truck" without specifying
the vehicle which itself indicates that the
accident did not took place from the truck
which was being driven by the driver
concerned namely Truck No. UP 44 AT
0404.

9. No other ground has been
taken/urged.

10. In support of her arguments
learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on a recent judgement of this Court
passed in First Appeal From Order No.
460 of 2018 in re: Kamleshwar Tiwari vs
Abhishek Verma and others decided on
06.02.2025, judgement of this Court passed
in the case of Shriram General Insurance
Co. Ltd vs Smt. Hem Lata and others,
2021(2) T.A.C. 366 (All.), judgement of
Division
Bench
of
this
Court
in
Parshuram Pal and others vs Ram
Lakhan and another, 2013 (98) ALR 589,
judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna
Ramchandra Nayan, AIR 1977 Supreme
Court
1248,
judgement
of
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Surinder
Kumar Arora & anr vs Dr. Manoj Bisla
& ors, AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1918.

11. Placing reliance on the judgement
of Parshuram Pal (supra) the contention
is that the chargesheet that had been
submitted by the authorities could not be
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made a basis for the purpose of filing of the
claim petition as the same cannot be
considered to be substantive evidence in
order to prove the accident against a
particular person.

12. Placing reliance on the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Minu B.
Mehta (supra) and Surinder Kumar
Arora (supra) the argument is that in order
to sustain an application under Section 166
of the Act, 1988 it has to be proved that
there was negligence on the part of the
driver of the vehicle being driven rashly
and negligently which has not been
indicated and proved by the claimants
while filing the claim petition.

13.

Placing
reliance
on
the
judgement of this Court in the case of
Smt. Hem Lata (supra) the argument is
that the prosecution witness 2 was father
in law of the deceased and he had not
seen the accident and as such no reliance
could have been placed on the statement
given by the said witness.

14.

Placing
reliance
on
the
judgement of this Court in the case of
Kamleshwar
Tiwari
(supra)
the
argument is that this Court has held that
once it is not known as to how the vehicle
number came to the knowledge of police
and chargesheet has also been filed
consequently
there
cannot
be
any
occasion for grant of compensation and
for allowing the claim petition.

15. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondents has supported
the award as passed by learned tribunal.

16. Heard learned counsels for the
parties and perused the record.

17. Having heard learned counsels
for the parties and having perused the
record it emerges that one Shri Ram
Kailash who was working as a Khalasi on
a truck no.UP 44 AT 0404 and was in
receipt of certain amount for the service
being rendered by him. Shri Ram Kailash
died on 27.05.2017 while working as
Khalasi on the said truck. As per the
claimants, on the fateful day, Shri Ram
Kailash had been asked by the driver of
the said vehicle to remove certain pieces
of concrete (goti) that had got stuck in the
backwheel of the truck. While Shri Ram
Kailash was cleaning the said concrete he
died on account of being involved in an
accident.
The
post
mortem
report
indicates that the identity of the deceased
was not known.

18. The truck had been seized on the
same day i.e. 27.05.2025 at around 11:40
AM as would be apparent from a perusal of
the seizure report (page 120). The accident
has occurred at 11:30 AM as would be
apparent from perusal of the claim petition
as well as the judgement of the learned
tribunal to which there is no dispute on the
part of the appellants.

19.

Learned
Tribunal
after
considering the alleged contradictions in
averments made in the written statements
that had been filed jointly by the driver and
the owner of the vehicle involved has
harmonized
the
averments
made
in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the written statement
to hold that though in one part of the
written statement, it had been indicated that
the accident occurred on account of
involvement of "a truck" but learned
tribunal also considered the categoric
averment made in paragraph 5 of the
written statement that the accident had
4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko Vs. Manorama & Ors.
973
occurred on account of negligence of the
driver of the truck.

20. As already indicated above, the
averments made in the written statement
have been harmonized by the learned
tribunal to arrive at the conclusion that it
was the truck driver who was involved in
the said accident and the accident occurred
on account of his negligence and has
thereafter awarded the compensation by
means of the impugned judgement and
award. The award has been challenged by
the appellant insurance company on the
grounds as indicated above which now the
Court proceeds to consider.

21. The grounds as urged by the
learned counsel for the appellant are as
under:

(a) that the claim application
having been filed under the provisions of
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle, 1988
which itself indicates that an application for
compensation arising out of accident of the
nature specified under Section 165 of the
Act, 1988 is to be filed by claimants and
Section 165 of the Act 1988 would have to
necessarily include an accident to have
arisen on account of negligence of the
driver and the vehicle having been driven
negligently and rashly which the claimants
failed to prove before the learned tribunal
as emerges from perusal of the written
statement that had been filed by the owner
and the driver as well as the statement of
the wife of the deceased and the post
mortem report which indicates that the
deceased was not identified at that stretch
of time. Reliance has also been placed on
the pleadings in this regard;

22. In this regard, a perusal of the
claim application would indicate that the
claimants had specifically averred of the
accident having occurred on 27.05.2017
from the same truck on which the deceased
was working as a Khalasi, rather a
categoric averment has been made in the
claim application that on account of the
negligence of the driver, while the deceased
was cleaning the backwheel, Shri Ram
Kailash died on the spot.

23. In the written statement, although
in one part of the written statement, the
driver and the owner have indicated that the
deceased died on account of an accident
involving "a truck" yet in paragraph 5 of
the written statement the negligence of the
driver concerned has clearly been brought
out.

24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Minu B. Mehta (supra) and
Surinder Kumar Arora (supra) has held
that there has to be an accident involving
the negligence of the vehicle concerned.

25. A perusal of the claim application
and the written statement would duly
indicate that there was clear negligence on
the part of the driver. Consequently keeping
in view the specific findings of fact as
given by learned Tribunal, the said ground
is rejected.

26. So far as ground (b) i.e. in the
written statement that was filed by the
owner and the driver, it was indicated that
the accident had occurred from "a truck"
without specifying the vehicle which itself
indicates that the accident did not took
place from the truck which was being
driven by the driver concerned namely
Truck No. UP 44 AT 0404, the argument is
that no evidence was led in support of the
accident in as much as neither PW1 nor
PW2 indicated about the accident having
974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
occurred in front of them or were
eyewitnesses, suffice to state that when the
owner and driver of the vehicle have
themselves indicated about the accident
having occurred and the written statement
has been read harmoniously by the learned
Tribunal and from the post mortem report
and the seizure report are all indicative of
the fact that the accident took place from
the vehicle in question itself i.e. the truck
no. UP 44 AT 0404 on account of the
negligence of the Driver, accordingly, the
said ground is also rejected.

27. In this regard it would be apt to
refer to the judgement of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi
and
others
vs
Himachal
Road
Transport Corporation and others,
2009 (13) SCC 530 wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held 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 and
that the claimants are only required to
establish the case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probabilities.

28. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant observations of the judgement of
Bimla Devi (supra) are reproduced
below:

"15. 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.
The
standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied. For
the said purpose, the High Court should
have
taken
into
consideration
the
respective stories set forth by both the
parties."
(Emphasis added)

29. In this regard, it would also be
pertinent to mention that in the charge
sheet that
has been filed by the
authorities the name of the Driver namely
Shitla Prasad of the offending vehicle has
clearly come out which itself indicates
about the offending vehicle and the driver
who caused the accident which resulted
in the death of Sri Ram Kailash which
aspect of the matter can also not be
ignored keeping in view the law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mangla Ram vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited & Others
2018 (5) SCC 656 wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that filing of
chargesheet against a particular person
prima facie points towards his complicity
in driving the vehicle negligently and
rashly.

30. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant observations of Hon'ble Supreme
Court are reproduced below:

"27.
Another
reason
which
weighted with the High Court to interfere
in the first appeal filed by respondents 2 &
3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal
about the factum of negligence of the driver
of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is
untenable. Our understanding of the
analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold
that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly
and negligently by respondent 2 when it
collided with the motorcycle of the
appellant leading to the accident. This can
be discerned from the evidence of witnesses
and the contents of the charge-sheet file by
4 All. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Lko Vs. Manorama & Ors.
975
the police, naming Respondent 2. This
Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes,
noted
that
the
plea
of
negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle as set up by the claimants
was required to be decided by the Tribunal
on the touchstone of preponderance or
probability and certainly not by standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to
observe
that
the
exposition
in
the
judgements already adverted to by us, filing
of charge-sheet against Respondent 2
prima facie points towards his complicity in
driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
Further, even when the accused were to be
acquitted in the criminal cases, this Court
opined that the same may be of no effect on
the assessment of the liability required in
respect of motor accident cases by the
Tribunal."
(Emphasis added)

31. A Division Bench of this Court in
the
case
of
Dr.
Anoop
Kumar
Bhattacharya & Another Vs. National
Insurance Co. Ltd. 2021 (12) ADJ 596
has held that the documents such as the
F.I.R., the Site map and the charge-sheet,
which form part of the police record, even
though
they
may
not
establish
the
occurrence, when considered holistically
and prudently, could help draw an informed
and intelligent inference as to the degree of
probability which lends itself to the case set
up by a claimant.

32. For the sake of convenience, the
relevant observations of Dr. Anoop Kumar
Bhattacharya (supra) are reproduced
below:

"29. We may now revert to the
original question whether Tribunal was
correct in altogether excluding from
evidence the documents such as the FIR,
the site plan and the charge-sheet, which
form part of the police record.

30. We have no doubt in our
mind that the answer to the aforesaid
question must be a resounding 'No'. The
Tribunal opted to ignore the FIR, the
charge-sheet and the site plan on the
ground that they do not establish either
that the driver of the offending truck was
involved in the accident or that he was
guilty of rash and negligent driving. In
our opinion, the Tribunal would have
been correct had the standard of proof in
claim proceedings been that of beyond
reasonable doubt as is the case with
criminal proceedings. Even in a criminal
proceedings, these documents may be
considered to corroborate the evidence led
in the Court and not to be completely
disregarded or ignored. In any case,
corroborative value of the police record
cannot be ignored completely though
decision may not be based solely upon
them. Moreover, the standard of proof in
the claim proceedings is not that of proof
beyond reasonable doubt but that of
preponderance
of
probabilities.
The
Tribunal on assessment of evidence before
it had to satisfy itself that it was more
likely than not that the events as alleged in
the claim petition had transpired. To our
mind, the documents such as the FIR, the
site map and the charge-sheet, which form
part of the police record, even though they
do not establish the occurrence when
considered holistically and prudently
could help draw an informed and
intelligent inference as to the degree of
probability which lends itself to the case
set up by a claimant. Was the FIR
promptly lodged or was it lodged after an
undue delay? Does the site plan conform
to the recital contained in the FIR? Do
injuries sustained corroborate the recital
contained in the FIR? Does the charge-
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sheet bolster the allegations contained in
the FIR? These are the factors which
when considered fairly and prudently
could help to assess if the case set up by
the claimants was more probable or not.
As such, we consider it an error to
altogether ignore the said documents on
the ground that they were not conclusive
proof of the occurrence more so since that
is not the goal of claim proceedings in the
first place."
(Emphasis added)

33. As already indicated above, from
perusal
of
the
chargesheet
dated
25.06.2017, which the Court has perused
from the original record, it clearly emerges
that the chargesheet indicates that on
account of negligence of the driver Shri
Shitla Prasad, who was the driver of the
concerned vehicle, the said accident had
taken place. It is also indicated that the
truck concerned has been released on the
orders passed by the learned court. This is
indicative
of
the
connivance
and
involvement of the driver Shitla Prasad in
the said accident and thus keeping in view
the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mangla Ram (supra)
it is apparent that learned tribunal has not
committed any error in arriving at a finding
of the deceased having died on account of
an accident involving the truck.

34. Accordingly, considering the
judgements
of
Bimla
Devi
(supra),
Mangla Ram (supra) and Dr. Anoop
Kumar
Bhattacharya
(supra)
the
judgements of Smt. Hem Lata (supra)
and Kamleshwar Tiwari (supra) may not
detain the Court.

35. Likewise the Division Bench
judgement of this Court in the case
Parshuram Pal (supra) over which
reliance has been placed by learned counsel
for the appellant is also not of any help to
the
appellant
keeping
in
view
the
judgement of Bimla Devi (supra) in this
regard which incidentally has not been
considered by division bench of this court
in the case of Parshuram Pal (supra).

36. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

37. Let trial court records be returned.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 976
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 602 of 2011
And
First Appeal from Order No. 670 of 2011

U.P.S.R.T.C. Faizabad .. Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meena Srivastava & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
J.B. Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Vivek Kumar Pandey, Amit Tripathi, M.A.
Siddiqui, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Claim
proceeding - Occurrence of incident - Non
production of Station superintendent to
proof the route of Bus - Testimony of
driver - Relevance - Held, the non
production of the station superintendent
may not detain this Court considering the
testimony
of
the
driver
wherein
he
specifically St.d that on 06.09.2007, the
bus returned through Sultanpur and was