# Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd v. Smt. Yashoda & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 929
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2393 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shriram-general-insurance-com-ltd-v-smt-yashoda-ors-52601
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

of evidence on record, that the accident was
caused solely due to rash and negligent driving
of offending Truck/Dumfer and in consequently
awarding
compensation
with
50%
future
prospects and interest thereon, particularly in
light of appellant-insurer's objections regarding
the delayed lodging of FIR, the alleged
inconsistency between the site plan and
Tribunal's findings on the manner of accident,
and the claim that future prospects and interest
thereon were wrongly computed.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss. 171, 173 -
U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A
- The case arises from a motor accident
dated 01.03.2015 at about 6:00 a.m.,
when
the
deceased
Ram
Khilawan
Rajpoot,
aged
about
37
years
and
employed with Kelly Services India Pvt.
Ltd., was travelling as a pillion rider on a
motorcycle driven in a cautious and
controlled
manner
towards
Ratanpur
Colony, Panki, when Truck/Dumfer No.
UP-92-T-3442, allegedly driven in a rash
and negligent manner and coming from
the
wrong
side,
collided
with
the
motorcycle, causing fatal injuries to the
deceased who died on the spot - FIR was
lodged
on
10.03.2015,
investigation
culminated in a charge sheet against the
driver of offending vehicle, and before the
Tribunal,
the
claimants
led
evidence
including the testimony of an eyewitness
(PW-3)
establishing
negligence,
upon
which
the
Tribunal
assessed
the
deceased's income, applied multiplier 15,
added 50% future prospects as per U.P.
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,
and
awarded
compensation of Rs. 18,34,000/- with 7%
interest to be indemnified by the insurer.

Held: The first informant is admittedly not an
eye-witness,
and
although
the
site
plan
indicates a head-on collision between the
Truck/Dumper and the motorcycle on which the
deceased was a pillion rider, the law laid down
in Jiju Kuruvila and Prabhavati (infra) makes it
clear that a site plan cannot, by itself, establish
negligence or the precise manner of the
accident. The Tribunal cannot treat the site plan
as determinative; the manner of occurrence and
the driver's negligence must be proved through
eye-witness testimony - In the present case, the
claimants examined PW-3 as an eye-witness,
who proved the occurrence of the accident and
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposed that the offending Truck/Dumper,
driven rashly and negligently on the right side of
the motorcycle, struck it from the left - He
further stated that the motorcycle was moving
at a normal speed and that the impact caused
fatal injuries to the pillion rider, who died on the
spot
-
Driver
and
owner
of
offending
Truck/Dumfer have not appeared in witness box
to contradict the claim - After investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted against the
driver of offending vehicle - Merely on the basis
of site plan, it cannot be presumed that accident
took place in the manner disclosed in site plan -
Delay in lodging the F.I.R. in motor accident
cases is not fatal because ordinarily the
dependents of injured/ deceased are busy in the
treatment of injured or performing the last rites
of deceased, as such, the F.I.R. is only
registered after the injured somewhat recovers
or last rites of deceased are performed - Thus,
the delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be termed as
fatal - In view of this, matter is no more res
integra - Tribunal has not erred in awarding
interest on future prospects, no illegality in
impugned judgment of Tribunal, as such, appeal
has no merits and liable to be dismissed. [Paras
12 to 15, 22, 24] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &
Others (2017) 16 SCC 680; ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani
Sahoo and Others (2025) 2 SCC 599; Ranjeet
and another v. Abdul Kayam Neb and another
2025
SCC
OnLine
Sc
497;
Ravi
v.
Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693; Jiju
Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.
(2013) 9 SCC 166; Prabhavati & Ors. v.
Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan,
Transport Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine SC
455

## Text

10 All. Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Yashoda & Ors.
929
to the sole negligence of the above
tractor?s driver, which was being driven in
a rash and negligent manner and further,
there was no breach of the policy
conditions.

17. Accordingly, this appeal has
got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at
the admission stage.

18. The appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage.

19. The impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal is affirmed.

20. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 929
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2393 of 2025

Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Yashoda & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vijay Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in concluding, on the basis
of evidence on record, that the accident was
caused solely due to rash and negligent driving
of offending Truck/Dumfer and in consequently
awarding
compensation
with
50%
future
prospects and interest thereon, particularly in
light of appellant-insurer's objections regarding
the delayed lodging of FIR, the alleged
inconsistency between the site plan and
Tribunal's findings on the manner of accident,
and the claim that future prospects and interest
thereon were wrongly computed.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss. 171, 173 -
U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A
- The case arises from a motor accident
dated 01.03.2015 at about 6:00 a.m.,
when
the
deceased
Ram
Khilawan
Rajpoot,
aged
about
37
years
and
employed with Kelly Services India Pvt.
Ltd., was travelling as a pillion rider on a
motorcycle driven in a cautious and
controlled
manner
towards
Ratanpur
Colony, Panki, when Truck/Dumfer No.
UP-92-T-3442, allegedly driven in a rash
and negligent manner and coming from
the
wrong
side,
collided
with
the
motorcycle, causing fatal injuries to the
deceased who died on the spot - FIR was
lodged
on
10.03.2015,
investigation
culminated in a charge sheet against the
driver of offending vehicle, and before the
Tribunal,
the
claimants
led
evidence
including the testimony of an eyewitness
(PW-3)
establishing
negligence,
upon
which
the
Tribunal
assessed
the
deceased's income, applied multiplier 15,
added 50% future prospects as per U.P.
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,
and
awarded
compensation of Rs. 18,34,000/- with 7%
interest to be indemnified by the insurer.

Held: The first informant is admittedly not an
eye-witness,
and
although
the
site
plan
indicates a head-on collision between the
Truck/Dumper and the motorcycle on which the
deceased was a pillion rider, the law laid down
in Jiju Kuruvila and Prabhavati (infra) makes it
clear that a site plan cannot, by itself, establish
negligence or the precise manner of the
accident. The Tribunal cannot treat the site plan
as determinative; the manner of occurrence and
the driver's negligence must be proved through
eye-witness testimony - In the present case, the
claimants examined PW-3 as an eye-witness,
who proved the occurrence of the accident and
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposed that the offending Truck/Dumper,
driven rashly and negligently on the right side of
the motorcycle, struck it from the left - He
further stated that the motorcycle was moving
at a normal speed and that the impact caused
fatal injuries to the pillion rider, who died on the
spot
-
Driver
and
owner
of
offending
Truck/Dumfer have not appeared in witness box
to contradict the claim - After investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted against the
driver of offending vehicle - Merely on the basis
of site plan, it cannot be presumed that accident
took place in the manner disclosed in site plan -
Delay in lodging the F.I.R. in motor accident
cases is not fatal because ordinarily the
dependents of injured/ deceased are busy in the
treatment of injured or performing the last rites
of deceased, as such, the F.I.R. is only
registered after the injured somewhat recovers
or last rites of deceased are performed - Thus,
the delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be termed as
fatal - In view of this, matter is no more res
integra - Tribunal has not erred in awarding
interest on future prospects, no illegality in
impugned judgment of Tribunal, as such, appeal
has no merits and liable to be dismissed. [Paras
12 to 15, 22, 24] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &
Others (2017) 16 SCC 680; ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Company Limited v. Rajani
Sahoo and Others (2025) 2 SCC 599; Ranjeet
and another v. Abdul Kayam Neb and another
2025
SCC
OnLine
Sc
497;
Ravi
v.
Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693; Jiju
Kuruvila & Ors. v. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors.
(2013) 9 SCC 166; Prabhavati & Ors. v.
Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan,
Transport Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine SC
455; New India Assurance Company Limited v.
Urmila Shukla and others, (2021) 20 SCC
800; ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Seema Devi & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine All
3064; Shanti and others v. Anil Awasthi and
another,
2022
SCC
Online
All
2560;
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi, Neutral
Citation:
2020:AHC-LKO:82171;
Oriental
Insurance Company Limited v. Niru and others,
2025 SCC Online SC 1431 - referred to.

List of Acts
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998

List of Keywords
Rash and negligent manner; Died on the spot;
Loss of consortium; Untimely death; Assessed
his income; Granted future prospects; Applied
multiplier; Awarded compensation; Indemnified
by the insurer; Alleged accident was doubtful;
Ten days after the accident; Testimony of eye
witness; Site plan prepared; Proved the factum
of accident; Serious injuries; Not appeared in
the witness box; Delay in lodging the FIR is not
fatal; Specific mandate under Rule 220-A; No
more res integra; Remit back the statutory
deposit;

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 2393 of 2025
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
23.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (South), Kanpur Nagar in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.446 of 2015

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Vijay Prakash Mishra
Advs. for the Respondents:
Aman Srivastava

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

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the Insurance Company
of offending Truck/Dumfer No. UP-92-T3442 against the impugned judgment and
award dated 23.06.2025 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (South),
Kanpur Nagar in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.446 of 2015 (Smt. Yashoda and
another vs. Shoaib Khan and others),
whereby compensation of Rs.18,34,000/-
along with interest @ 7% per annum has
been awarded to the claimants for the
untimely death of deceased Ram Khilawan
Rajpoot in a motor accident that took place
on 01.03.2015, which is to be indemnified
10 All. Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Yashoda & Ors.
931
by
the
insurer
of
the
offending
Truck/Dumfer.

2. Factual matrix is that on
01.03.2015, at about 6:00 a.m. the deceased
Ram Khilawan Rajpoot, was travelling as
pillion rider to his elder brother?s (Jagdish
Singh) house situated in Ratanpur Colony,
Panki on the motorcycle of Sunil Kumar
having Registration No. U.P.-78-DQ-7491,
which was driven cautiously and in a
controlled speed then near Ratanpur village
Truck/ Dumfer No. UP-92-T-3442, which
was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner came from the wrong side and hit
the above motorcycle, due to which Ram
Khilawan
Rajpoot
sustained
serious
injuries, who died on the spot. At the time
of accident, the deceased was aged about
37 years and was employed in Kelly
Services India Private Limited and was
drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- per month.
The Tribunal assessed his income @
Rs.9,800/- per month, granted future
prospects of 50%, applied multiplier of 15,
deducted
one-third
Rs.
58,800/-and
awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss of
consortium. The Tribunal in this manner
awarded a compensation of Rs.18,34,000/-
along with 7% interest per annum to the
claimants, which was ordered to be
indemnified by the insurer of the offending
vehicle.

3.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant Insurance Company submitted
that the alleged accident was doubtful
because the F.I.R. was registered on
10.03.2015 at 17:30 hours at P.S. Panki,
District Kanpur Nagar as Case Crime
No.54 of 2015, which was lodged ten days
after the accident. Learned counsel further
submitted that according to the testimony
of eye witness PW-3 Aditya Kumar Tiwari,
the accident took place head-on but the
Tribunal concluded that the offending
vehicle hit the motorcycle of the deceased
from
behind.
Learned
counsel
also
submitted that as per the site plan prepared
in the instant case, the accident was
disclosed as head-on. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Tribunal has
erred by awarding future prospect @ 50%
whereas as per the judgment of the Apex
Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Pranay Sethi & Others(2017) 16 SCC 680
future prospects of 40% has been awarded.
It was further submitted that the Tribunal
erred in awarding interest on the future
prospects. It was prayed that the appeal be
admitted and decided on merits.

4. I have heard learned counsel for
the appellant Insurance Company and
perused the impugned judgment and
documents submitted by the appellant.

5. The Apex Court in the case of
ICICI
Lombard
General
Insurance
Company Limited vs. Rajani Sahoo and
Others (2025) 2 SCC 599, has held as
under:-

 "8. As regards the reliability of
charge-sheet
and
other
documents
collected
by
the
police
during
the
investigation in motor accident cases, this
Court
in
Mangla
Ram
v.
Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2018) 5 SCC 656 :
(2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC
(Cri) 819 : 2018 INSC 311] , held in para
27, thus : (SCC p. 672)

 "27.
Another
reason
which
weighed with the High Court to interfere in
the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 and
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
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 filed
by the police, naming Respondent 2. This
Court in a recent decision in Dulcina
Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1
SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] ,
noted that the key 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 of probability and
certainly not by standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that
the exposition in the judgments 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 case, 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.?
 9. It is true that the Tribunal had
looked into the oral and documentary
evidence including the FIR, final report
and such other documents prepared by the
police in connection with the accident in
question. The Tribunal had also taken note
of the fact that based on the final report,
the driver of the offending truck was tried
and found guilty for rash and negligent
driving. The High Court took note of such
aspects and found no illegality in the
procedure adopted by the Tribunal and
consequently dismissed the appeal.
 10. In the contextual situation it
is relevant to refer to a decision of this
Court in Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi
[(2023) 13 SCC 510 : 2023 INSC 621] ,
this Court held thus : (SCC p. 514, para
12)

 "12. ? A holistic view of the
evidence has to be taken into consideration
by the Tribunal and strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular vehicle in a
particular manner need not be established
by the claimants. The claimants have to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance
of
probabilities.
The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
cannot be applied while considering the
petition seeking compensation on account
of death or injury in a road traffic accident.
To the same effect is the observation made
by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v.
Joaquim Xavier Cruz [(2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 13] which has referred to the
aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi [Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530
: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC
(Cri) 1101] ."

 11. Thus, there can be no dispute
with respect to the position that the
question regarding negligence which is
essential for passing an award in a motor
vehicle
accident
claim
should
be
considered based on the evidence available
before the Tribunal. If the police records
are available before the Tribunal, taking
note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be
said that looking into such documents for
the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or
inadmissible.

 12. It is also a fact that the
appellant had attributed that the respondent
claimants
connived
with
police
and
fraudulently prepared the charge-sheet. The
contention is that the vehicle insured with
10 All. Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Yashoda & Ors.
933
the appellant was not involved in the
accident and the accident had occurred
solely due to the rash and negligence on the
part of the deceased. But the evidence on
record would reveal that pursuant to the
filing of the final report, cognizance was
taken for rash and negligent driving which
resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo."

 (emphasis supplied)

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb
and another 2025 SCC OnLine Sc 497,
has held as under:-

 "4. It is settled in law that once a
charge sheet has been filed and the driver
has been held negligent, no further
evidence is required to prove that the bus
was being negligently driven by the bus
driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not
examined, that will not be fatal to prove
the death of the deceased due to
negligence of the bus driver."

 (emphasis supplied)

7. The Apex Court in the case of
Ravi vs. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4
SCC 693, while analyzing the delay in
registering FIR in motor accident cases,
held as under:-

 "17. It is well settled that delay in
lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to
doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the
Indian conditions as they are, we cannot
expect a common man to first rush to the
police
station
immediately
after
an
accident.
Human
nature
and
family
responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and
kin to such an extent that they give more
importance to get the victim treated rather
than to rush to the police station. Under
such circumstances, they are not expected
to act mechanically with promptitude in
lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in
lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground
to deny justice to the victim.

 18. In cases of delay, the courts
are required to examine the evidence with a
closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents
of the FIR should also be scrutinised more
carefully. If the court finds that there is no
indication of fabrication or it has not been
concocted or engineered to implicate
innocent persons then, even if there is a
delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case
cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.
The purpose of lodging the FIR in such
type of cases is primarily to intimate the
police to initiate investigation of criminal
offences.
 19. Lodging of FIR certainly
proves the factum of accident so that the
victim is able to lodge a case for
compensation but delay in doing so cannot
be the main ground for rejecting the claim
petition. In other words, although lodging
of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident
claim cases, delay in lodging the same
should not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings, if claimant has been able to
demonstrate
satisfactory
and
cogent
reasons for it. There could be a variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of
the victim are able to regain a certain level
of tranquillity of mind and are composed to
lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same
deserves
to
be
condoned.
In
such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR
assumes much more significance than delay
in lodging thereof supported by cogent
reasons."

8. The Apex Court in the case of
Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mohan & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 166, held as
under:-

 "20.5. The mere position of the
vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene
mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as
to the rash and negligent driving on the
part of one or the other. When two vehicles
coming from opposite directions collide,
the position of the vehicles and its
direction, etc. depends on a number of
factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity
of collision, reason for collision, place at
which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From
the scene of the accident, one may suggest
or presume the manner in which the
accident was caused, but in the absence of
any direct or corroborative evidence, no
conclusion can be drawn as to whether
there was negligence on the part of the
driver. In absence of such direct or
corroborative evidence, the Court cannot
give any specific finding about negligence
on the part of any individual.

 20.6. The post-mortem report,
Ext. A-5 shows the condition of the
deceased at the time of death. The said
report reflects that the deceased had
already taken meal as his stomach was
half-full and contained rice, vegetables and
meat pieces in a fluid with strong smell of
spirit. The aforesaid evidence, Ext. A-5
clearly suggests that the deceased had
taken liquor but on the basis of the same,
no definite finding can be given that the
deceased was driving the car rashly and
negligently at the time of accident. The
mere suspicion based on Ext. B-2 ?scene
mahazar? and Ext. A-5 post-mortem report
cannot take
the
place
of
evidence,
particularly, when the direct evidence like
PW 3 (independent eyewitness), Ext. A-1
(FIR), Ext. A-4 (charge-sheet) and Ext. B-1
(FI statement) are on record.'
9. The Apex Court in the case of
Prabhavati & Ors. vs. Managing Director,
Bangalore
Metropolitan,
Transport
Corporation 2025 SCC OnLine SC 455,
held as under:-

' 10. We are unable to agree with
the view taken by the High Court on the
25%
contributory
negligence
of
the
deceased and 75% upon the driver of the
bus. We find ourselves to agree with the
view taken by the Tribunal on this issue.
The Tribunal rightly, after considering the
evidence on record and on perusal of the
Ex. P3 Spot Mahazar, came to the
conclusion that there wasn't any sufficient
evidence on record, indicating that the
accident occurred due to negligent driving
on the part of the deceased, and after
considering the oral evidence of P.W.1,
held the cause of the accident to be rash
and negligent on the part only of the
offending vehicle.

 11. Thus, in our considered view,
the contributory negligence taken by the
High Court at 25% of the deceased is
erroneous. We advert to the principles laid
down
in
Jiju
Kuruvila
v.
Kunjujamma(supra) where it was held that
in
the
absence
of
any
direct
or
corroborative evidence on record, it cannot
be assumed that the accident occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of both
the vehicles. This exposition came to be
followed in Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh
(2015) 1 SCC 539. In the present case,
therefore, on an allegation simpliciter, it
cannot be presumed that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of both vehicles, for having driven at high
speed.'

10. It is apparent that the accident
took place on 01.03.2015 at about 6:00 a.m.
10 All. Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Yashoda & Ors.
935
but the F.I.R. was registered on 10.03.2015
at 17:30 hours at police station Panki,
District Kanpur Nagar as Case Crime
No.54 of 2015, under Sections 279, 337,
338, 304-A, 427 I.P.C. against the
unknown driver of Truck/ Dumfer No. UP92-T-3442. The F.I.R. discloses that the
above Dumfer was driven in a rash and
negligent manner, resulting in grievous
injuries to first informant?s brother Ram
Khilawan Rajpoot, in which his head was
crushed under the wheels of the Dumfer
and he died instantaneously on the spot.
The F.I.R. discloses that the accident was
seen by Mahesh, Sumit Kumar and many
other persons. It also discloses that after the
accident, the driver of the Dumfer fled.

11. It is apparent that after
investigation, a charge sheet has been
submitted against the driver of the
offending Truck/ Dumfer, Charan Singh.

12. It is evident that the first
informant is not an eye witness of the
alleged accident and it is also true that the
site plan discloses that the accident was
caused head-on when the Truck/Dumfer
collided with the motorcycle on which
deceased was travelling as pillion rider at
the time of the accident but from the law
laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Jiju
Kuruvila
(supra)
and
Prabhavati(supra), it is evident that from
the site plan, no conclusion can be drawn as
to the negligence on the part of a particular
driver and merely on the basis of the site
plan, it cannot be inferred that a particular
accident occurred in a particular manner.
The Tribunal is not supposed to treat the
site plan as an indicator or proof of the
manner in which the accident occurred and
in every case, the accident and the
negligence of the driver is to be proved by
the eye witnesses of the accident.
13. In the instant case, the
claimants have examined PW-3 Aditya
Kumar Tiwari as an eye witness of the
accident, who proved the factum of
accident and also proved that at the time of
the accident, the offending Truck/Dumfer
was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, which was towards the right of the
motorcycle, which hit the motorcycle from
it?s left side, at the time of the accident the
motorcycle was being driven in a normal
speed, resulting in serious injuries to the
pillion rider, who died on the spot.

14. It is apparent that the driver and
owner of the offending Truck/Dumfer have
not appeared in the witness box to
contradict the claim. After investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted against the
driver of the offending vehicle. In view of
this, merely on the basis of site plan, it
cannot be presumed that the accident took
place in the manner disclosed in the site
plan.

15. It is also evident that delay in
lodging the F.I.R. in motor accident cases
is
not
fatal
because
ordinarily
the
dependents of the injured/ deceased are
busy in the treatment of the injured or
performing the last rites of the deceased, as
such, the F.I.R. is only registered after the
injured somewhat recovers or the last rites
of the deceased are performed. In view of
this, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot
be termed as fatal.

16. The U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules,
220-A specifically mandate that where the
age of the deceased was below 40 years,
then 50% of the salary or minimum wages
are to be added towards his future
prospects. The Apex Court in the case of
New India Assurance Company Limited
vs. Urmila Shukla and others, (2021) 20
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
SCC 800, specifically considered this issue
whether in the State of U.P. future
prospects can be awarded in accordance
with Rule 220-A of the U.P. Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1998, which provides for greater
future prospects in comparison with the law
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in Pranay Sethi(supra) and the
Apex Court concluded that where the
statutory rules provide a definite criteria for
awarding future prospects, then it has to be
followed. In this case, the Tribunal in
accordance with the above rules has
awarded future prospects of 50%, since the
deceased was only about 38 years old at the
time of the accident.

17. It is also apparent that the
Tribunal has awarded interest on the future
prospects in this case. Learned counsel for
the Insurance Company submitted that
Tribunal has erred in awarding interest on
the future prospects, relying on the case
law of ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs. Seema Devi & Ors. 2024 SCC
OnLine All 3064.

18. I have considered the above
judgment and the submissions of learned
counsel on this point.

19. It is apparent that Section 171
of the Motor Vehicle Act, reads as under :-

 171. Award of interest where any
claim is allowed.-Where any Claims
Tribunal allows a claim for compensation
made under this Act, such Tribunal may
direct that in addition to the amount of
compensation simple interest shall also be
paid at such rate and from such date not
earlier than the date of making the claim as
it may specify in this behalf.

 20. Rule 220-A (6) of the Uttar
Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 reads
as under :-

 220-A.
Determination
of
compensation.- ******

 (6) The rate of interest shall be
7% pendente lite and future till the actual
payment.

21. This issue was considered by
the co-ordinate Benches of this Court in
Shanti and others vs. Anil Awasthi and
another, 2022 SCC Online All 2560 and
U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Bhawani Prasad Manjhi,
Neutral Citation: 2020:AHC-LKO:82171,
in which the above contention of the
Insurance Company was repelled and it
was held that the claimants are entitled to
get interest on the future prospects as well.
Further, the U.P.S.R.T.C. challenged the
above judgment in Bhawani Prasad
Manjhi's case by preferring S.L.P. (Civil)
No.5183 of 2025 before the Apex Court
which was dismissed vide order dated
03.03.2025. Further the Apex Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Company
Limited vs. Niru and others, 2025 SCC
Online SC 1431, repelled the submission of
the Insurance Company that interest cannot
be awarded on future prospects by
specifically holding that it cannot be denied
to the claimants.

22. In view of this, the matter is no
more res integra. In all the recent
judgments of the Apex Court, interest is
being awarded on future prospects, as such,
the contention of learned counsel for the
appellant has no force and is rejected. The
Tribunal has not erred in awarding interest
on the future prospects.
10 All. Regional Manager, Magma Hdi General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Kumar & Ors. 937
23. No other point was pressed by
learned counsel for the appellant.

24. In view of the aforesaid facts,
there is no illegality in the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal, as such, this
appeal has no merits and is liable to be
dismissed at the admission stage.

25. Accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed at the admission stage.

26. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made
by the appellant at the time of filing of the
appeal
to
the
concerned
Tribunal,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 937
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2520 of 2025

Regional Manager, Magma Hdi General
Insurance Com. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Utkarsh Birla

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in determining the
quantum of compensation by assessing the
claimant's
functional
disability
at
60%,
computing loss of income on the basis of
minimum wages, and awarding 40% future
prospects,
particularly
when
the
insurer
contended that the claimant had failed to prove
the nature of his employment, his income, and
extent of disability, and further asserted that the
grant of future prospects in a case of permanent
disability was legally impermissible.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - U.P.
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A - The
case emanates from a motor accident
occurring on 13.10.2021, wherein the
claimant Sanjay Kumar, then about 40
years of age and employed as a labourer
in a biscuit factory while also engaged in
farming,
was
travelling
when
the
offending
Bolero,
driven
negligently,
caused an accident resulting in grievous
injuries culminating in the amputation of
his right leg above the knee, rendering
him permanently disabled; he asserted a
monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- from
factory work and agriculture and produced
a Government-issued disability certificate
showing 70% permanent disability, on the
basis of which the Tribunal assessed his
functional disability at 60%, adopted
minimum wages of an unskilled labourer
for income computation, applied 40%
future
prospects,
and
awarded
compensation totalling Rs. 21,37,772/-
with 7% interest, holding the insurer
liable to indemnify the award.

Held: It is apparent that Apex Court in the case
of Sidram (infra) has held that in accident cases
involving serious injuries resulting in permanent
disablement, compensation for future prospects
should be awarded - In view of the facts,
tribunal has not erred in awarding compensation
for future prospects, keeping in view the serious
injuries suffered by claimant due to which his
right leg was amputated above knee and he
suffered 70% permanent disability - Appeal has
got no merit and liable to be dismissed. [Paras
13, 15, 16] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Anoop
Maheshwari
v.
Oriental
Insurance
Company Ltd. & others reported in 2025 INSC
1076; Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United
India Insurance Co.Ltd. & Anr. (2023) 3 SCC
439; National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
& Ors. (2017)16 SCC 680 - relied on