# Ranjeet Singh v. The Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 884
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-04
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1902 of 2010
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-singh-v-the-oriental-insurance-co-anr-48253
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 198810t h
schedule-Final
report
not
conclusive prove for vehicle not involved
- Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly
directs that the driver of every motor
vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction - court cannot
dispense
with
proof
of
negligence
altogether - rule of res-ipsa loquitor as
a rule of evidence may be invoked in
motor
accident
cases
-
matter
is
remanded to the Tribunal for deciding
the issue of compensation only.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291 and this High
Court in, total amount of interest, accrued on
the principal amount of compensation is to be
apportioned on financial year to financial year
basis and if the interest payable to claimant for
any financial year exceeds Rs.50,000/-,
insurance company/ owner is/are entitled to
deduct appropriate amount under the head of
'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s 194A
(3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the
amount
of
interest
does
not
exceeds
Rs.50,000/- in any financial year, registry of
this Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant
to withdraw the amount without producing the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another) and
in First Appeal From Order No.2871 of
2016 (Tej Kumari Sharma v. Chola
Mandlam M.S. General Insurance Co.
Ltd.) decided on 19.3.2021 while disbursing
the amount.

18. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court.
----------
(2022)03ILR A884
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2022

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 1902 of 2010

Ranjeet Singh ...Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nipun Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sushil Kumar Mehrotra

Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 198810t h
schedule-Final
report
not
conclusive prove for vehicle not involved
- Clause-6 of such Regulation clearly
directs that the driver of every motor
vehicle to slow down vehicle at every
intersection or junction - court cannot
dispense
with
proof
of
negligence
altogether - rule of res-ipsa loquitor as
a rule of evidence may be invoked in
motor
accident
cases
-
matter
is
remanded to the Tribunal for deciding
the issue of compensation only.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Varinderjit Singh Vs Tajinder Singh & ors.,
2008 (4) TAC 250 Punjab and Haryana
2. Devi Prasad Vs Zahur Khan, 2001 (2) TAC 419
Madhya Pradesh

3. Hanwar Lal Verma Vs Sharad Dholiya, 2007
ACJ 52

4. Kusum Lata & ors. Vs Satbir & ors., 2011 (2)
Supreme 207

5. Saroj & ors. Vs Het Lal & ors., (2011) 1 SCC
388

6. Vimla Devi & ors. Vs National Insurance Co.
Ltd. & ors., 2019 (133) ALR 768
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)
3 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr.
885

1. Sri Nipun Singh appearing for the
appellant and Sri S.K. Mehrotra for the
respondents.

2. Once the owner admits before the
Tribunal to dispose of the claim when it
was not proved by the Insurance Company
that they were in collusion, this is the main
issue involved in this appeal.

3. The brief facts as culled out from
the record are that the appellant met with
an accident on 25.1.2007 at about 11:45
hrs. when he was driving the motorcycle
along with his nephew and was travelling
between Delhi to Ghaziabad and when he
came near I.P.M. College and he entered
the railway flyover, one unknown truck
being driven rashly and negligently came
on the wrong side and dashed with him. He
sustained injuries and he had one of his put
amputated. The truck could not be named
as his nephew and he both were busy in
getting him admitted into the hospital. On
29.1.2007 one of the witnesses came and
conveyed to him the number of the truck
being numbered as DL-01-GB-5913. The
owner of the truck gave him some money
so that he may not file criminal case. On
notice being issued, the Insurance company
appeared and filed their reply. The driver
and owner accepted the accident having
taken place but contended that the accident
occurred due to negligence of the appellant
herein.

4. The Tribunal framed about 4 issues
and rejected the claim petition holding that
it was not proved that the accident occurred
with the truck in question. The Tribunal
disbelieved PW-1, who is claimant and eye
witness. Just because there is 2 days delay,
the Tribunal on the basis that the police had
filed the summary, it is not conclusively
proved that the vehicle was not involved in
the accident. The claimant was examined at
Yashoda Hospital. PW2 - Subhash Kumar
has
been
disbelieved.
The
F.I.R.
categorically mentions about the truck. Just
because the final report was filed will not
conclusively prove that the vehicle was not
involved. The Tribunal on surmises and
conjectures disbelieved PW1 and PW2 only
on the ground that there was a delay in
filing the F.I.R. The written statement of
the owner ought to have been looked into
by the Tribunal before brushing aside the
judgment
and
not
relying
on
the
authoritative
pronouncements
in
Varinderjit Singh Vs. Tajinder Singh &
others, 2008 (4) TAC 250 Punjab and
Haryana, Devi Prasad Vs. Zahur Khan,
2001 (2) TAC 419 Madhya Pradesh, and
Bhanwar Lal Verma Vs. Sharad Dholiya,
2007 ACJ 52.

5. The appellant has challenged
impugned
award
and decision
dated
8.3.2010
on
the
following
amongst
grounds:

(i) The order passed by the
Tribunal is illegal, arbitrary, without
application of mind, cyclostyle manner and
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

(ii) The court below has failed to
consider, while passing the impugned
order, that the owner of the vehicle/
respondent no.2 himself admitted that the
accident took place by his vehicle.

(iii) There is no negligence on the
part of the applicant and the accident took
place due to negligence driving of the
respondent no.2.

(iv) The court below has failed to
consider, while passed the impugned order,
that in the statement of PW-2 - Subhash
Kumar, who is an eye witness of the
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid accident supported the view taken
by the appellant.

(v) At the time of accident the
appellant is earning Rs.6,500/- per month
by generalize and after the accident he got
70% disable and lost his earning capacity.

6. Learned Counsel Sri Nipun Singh
has relied on the following decisions:-

(i) Kusum Lata and others Vs.
Satbir and others, 2011 (2) Supreme 207;

(ii) Saroj and others Vs. Het Lal
and others, (2011) 1 SCC 388; and

(iii) Vimla Devi and others Vs.
National Insurance Company Limited and
others, 2019 (133) ALR 768;

so as to contend that the petition
has been dismissed by assigning reasons
which are not germane.

7. It is submitted by Sri S.K. Mahrotra
that the petition was rightly dismissed as the
F.I.R. culminated into a report and there was
no objection raised to that. The owner has
colluded with the petitioners and, therefore,
also there is no reason to not concur with the
Tribunal. The owner did not stepped into the
witness box. The Insurance company did not
examine in person nor was the owner of the
vehicle, which is alleged to be involved in the
accident, put to any cross-examination as he
did not appear before the Tribunal nor did the
Insurance company examine him as its
witness. The Tribunal dismissed the claim
petition holding that it was not proved by
cogent evidence that the accident occurred
with the vehicle in question.

8.

The
evidence
on
record
conclusively proves that the vehicle was
involved in the accident. The findings of
the Tribunal that the vehicle was not
involved in the accident is perverse and
against the tenet of evidence and deserves
to be reversed. The findings of fact that the
truck was not involved in the accident is
absurd. The driver of the truck has nowhere
stated that the vehicle was not involved in
the accident. Filing of final report is not a
conclusive proof in view of the judgment of
Varinderjit Singh Vs. Tajinder Singh &
others, 2008 (4) TAC 250 Punjab and
Haryana. The Insurance company could
not have summoned the owner and the
driver
and
cross-examined
them
but
nothing in evidence it has been brought on
record that the vehicle was not brought on
record. Just because protest petition was
not filed, it does not mean that the vehicle
was not involved in the accident. The
judgment of Vastu Ram Vs. Anant Ram
and others, reported in 1990 ACJ 323,
Himanchal Pradesh of the High Court
would apply to the facts of this case. An
owner may not like to file protest petition
as it would be in his favour. The claimant
would not be even aware about whether he
was summoned to file protest or not it has
not been brought on record. The medical
evidence speaks volume just because the
doctor, who had treated the appellant, is not
examined. It cannot be said that the vehicle
was not involved. The Tribunal believes
that the injuries were due to accident and,
therefore, dismissing the claim petition is
bad in the eye of law. There was
amputation also and, therefore, it cannot be
said that it was a planted vehicle.

9. As far as issue of contributory
negligence is concerned as alleged by the
appellant, I will have to consider the
principles for deciding the negligence.
Negligence means failure to exercise
required degree of care and caution
3 All. Ranjeet Singh Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. & Anr.
887
expected of a prudent driver. Negligence is
the omission to do something which a
reasonable
man,
guided
upon
the
considerations, which ordinarily regulate
conduct of human affairs, would do, or
doing something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do. Negligence
is not always a question of direct evidence.
It is an inference to be drawn from proved
facts. Negligence is not an absolute term,
but is a relative one. It is rather a
comparative term. What may be negligence
in one case may not be so in another.
Where there is no duty to exercise care,
negligence in the popular sense has no legal
consequence. Where there is a duty to
exercise care, reasonable care must be
taken to avoid acts or omissions which
would be reasonably foreseen likely to
caused physical injury to person. The
degree of care required, of course, depends
upon facts in each case. On these broad
principles, the negligence of drivers is
required to be assessed.

10. It would be seen that burden of
proof for contributory negligence on the
part of deceased has to be discharged by
the opponents. It is the duty of driver of the
offending vehicle to explain the accident. It
is well settled law that at intersection where
two roads cross each other, it is the duty of
a fast moving vehicle to slow down and if
driver did not slow down at intersection,
but continued to proceed at a high speed
without caring to notice that another
vehicle was crossing, then the conduct of
driver necessarily leads to conclusion that
vehicle was being driven by him rashly as
well as negligently.

11. 10th Schedule appended to Motor
Vehicle Act contain statutory regulations
for driving of motor vehicles which also
form part of every Driving License. Clause6 of such Regulation clearly directs that the
driver of every motor vehicle to slow down
vehicle at every intersection or junction of
roads or at a turning of the road. It is also
provided that driver of the vehicle should
not enter intersection or junction of roads
unless he makes sure that he would not
thereby endanger any other person. Merely,
because driver of the Truck was driving
vehicle on the left side of road would not
absolve him from his responsibility to slow
down
vehicle
as
he
approaches
intersection of roads, particularly when he
could have easily seen, that the car over
which
deceased
was
riding,
was
approaching intersection.

12. In view of the fast and constantly
increasing volume of traffic, motor vehicles
upon roads may be regarded to some extent
as coming within the principle of liability
defined in Rylands V/s. Fletcher, (1868) 3
HL (LR) 330. From the point of view of
pedestrian, the roads of this country have
been rendered by the use of motor vehicles,
highly dangerous. 'Hit and run' cases where
drivers of motor vehicles who have caused
accidents, are unknown. In fact such cases
are increasing in number. Where a
pedestrian without negligence on his part is
injured or killed by a motorist, whether
negligently or not, he or his legal
representatives, as the case may be, should
be entitled to recover damages if principle
of social justice should have any meaning
at all.

13. These provisions (sec.110A and
sec.110B of Motor Act, 1988) are not
merely
procedural
provisions.
They
substantively affect the rights of the parties.
The right of action created by Fatal
Accidents Act, 1855 was 'new in its
species, new in its quality, new in its
principles. In every way it was new. The
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
right given to legal representatives under
Act, 1988 to file an application for
compensation for death due to a motor
vehicle accident is an enlarged one. This
right cannot be hedged in by limitations of
an action under Fatal Accidents Act, 1855.
New situations and new dangers require
new strategies and new remedies.

14. In the light of the above
discussion, we are of the view that even if
courts may not by interpretation displace
the principles of law which are considered
to be well settled and, therefore, court
cannot dispense with proof of negligence
altogether in all cases of motor vehicle
accidents, it is possible to develop the law
further on the following lines; when a
motor vehicle is being driven with
reasonable care, it would ordinarily not
meet with an accident and, therefore, rule
of res-ipsa loquitor as a rule of evidence
may be invoked in motor accident cases
with greater frequency than in ordinary
civil suits (per three-Judge Bench in Jacob
Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 ACJ
(SC) 1840).

15. By the above process, the burden
of proof may ordinarily be cast on the
defendants in a motor accident claim
petition to prove that motor vehicle was
being driven with reasonable care or that
there is equal negligence on the part of
driver of another vehicle.

16. We cannot concur with the
learned Judge that it was not proved that
the truck driver had not driven the truck
rashly and negligently. The injuries suggest
that the truck driver on the bridge was
driving the vehicle rashly and negligently.
Hence, the said issue is answered in the
positive and in favour of the appellant. The
appreciation of evidence as held by the
Apex Court in the case of Kusum Lata,
Saroj and Vimla Devi (supra) will not
permit us to concur with the learned
Tribunal. The finding is perverse. They
have been decided by the Tribunal in
favour of the appellant herein.

17. As far as issue nos. 2 and 3 are
concerned, they have been decided by the
Tribunal.

18. The appeal is allowed. The matter
is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding
the issue of compensation only and,
therefore, presence of the claimants and the
Insurance company will alone be necessary
and they may be heard on the quantum of
compensation to be awarded. The record be
sent back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal to
decide the matter within 8 weeks from
today after hearing the Counsel for the
Insurance company and the Counsel for the
claimants. No fresh evidence is required in
the matter.
----------
(2022)03ILR A888
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2063 of 2011

Smt. Raj Kumari & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Surendra Kumar & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Anju Shukla, Sri Nigmendra Shukla, Sri
Anuj Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents: