# Smt. Preeti Pandey & Ors v. Mohit Khandelwal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 839
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-05
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 3996 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-preeti-pandey-ors-v-mohit-khandelwal-ors-52293
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

(A) CIVIL LAW - - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Sections 140 & 166 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 279 & 304-A - Appeal
against rejection of claim - Accident - due to
offending car rashly and negligently hit the
motorcycle of the deceased from back side -
delay in FIR - claim was contested by both
owner & insurer of the vehicle - trial court
rejection claim petition - on the ground due to
delay in lodging FIR and involvement of car in
the accident was not proved - court finds that,
involvement of car was not denied either by the
owner or by insurer company and they have
also not led any evidence in rebuttal and even
the driver was also not produced to deny the
involvement of car - held, it is well settled law
that strict proof of evidence are not applicable in
the case of motor accident and the claim
petition under Motor Vehicle Act would not be
dismissed on the ground of delay in lodging the
FIR - claimants have fully proved the
involvement of insured car in the accident - Trial
court
has
committed
gross
illegality
in
dismissing the claim petition - hence, appeal is
allowed and matter is remanded back to trial
court to decide the claim as fresh - directions
issued accordingly. (Para - 18, 19, 20, 21)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Smt. Preeti Pandey & Ors. Vs. Mohit Khandelwal & Ors.
839
this judgment, as it is restricted only to the
stage of claim for injunction.
 (vi) No party shall take any
unnecessary adjournment and strict time
schedule framed by this Court shall be
followed by all concerned. Adjournment, is
necessary, shall be subject to payment of
cost to be determined as per the wisdom
and discretion of the trial court.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 839
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 3996 of 2018

Smt. Preeti Pandey & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Mohit Khandelwal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Satya Deo Ojha, Som Dutt Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashutosh Srivastava

(A) CIVIL LAW - - Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, Sections 140 & 166 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 279 & 304-A - Appeal
against rejection of claim - Accident - due to
offending car rashly and negligently hit the
motorcycle of the deceased from back side -
delay in FIR - claim was contested by both
owner & insurer of the vehicle - trial court
rejection claim petition - on the ground due to
delay in lodging FIR and involvement of car in
the accident was not proved - court finds that,
involvement of car was not denied either by the
owner or by insurer company and they have
also not led any evidence in rebuttal and even
the driver was also not produced to deny the
involvement of car - held, it is well settled law
that strict proof of evidence are not applicable in
the case of motor accident and the claim
petition under Motor Vehicle Act would not be
dismissed on the ground of delay in lodging the
FIR - claimants have fully proved the
involvement of insured car in the accident - Trial
court
has
committed
gross
illegality
in
dismissing the claim petition - hence, appeal is
allowed and matter is remanded back to trial
court to decide the claim as fresh - directions
issued accordingly. (Para - 18, 19, 20, 21)

Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ravi Vs Badrinarayan & ors.(AIR 2011 SC 1226),

2. Smt. Sumitra Kaur & anr.Vs New India Assurance
Company Ltd. & anr.(2012 (4) TAC 799(All),

3.
Meenakshamma
Vs
B.
Hanumanthappa
&
anr.(1997 (1) TAC 50(Kant.),

4. Sunita and others Vs Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation & anr.(AIR 2019 SC 994),

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vipin Chandra
Dixit, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha and Sri Som
Dutt Pandey, learned counsels for the
claimants-appellants
and
Sri
Shreyas
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent
no.1, who is owner of the vehicle and Sri
Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent no.2, New India
Assurance Company Ltd. No one is present
on behalf of respondent no.3, driver of the
vehicle.

2. This First Appeal From Order
has been filed on behalf of claimantsappellants against the judgment and order
dated 04.09.2018 passed by Additional
District
Judge,
Court
No.10/Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in
MACP No.178 of 2016 (Smt. Preeti
Pandey and others vs. Mohit Khandelwal
840 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and others), by which claim petition filed
by claimants-appellants was rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
the claimants-appellants have filed claim
petition under Section 140 and 166 of
Motor
Vehicle
Act,
1988
claiming
compensation of Rs.54,62,000/- along with
12 per cent interest on account of death of
Sunil Kumar Pandey, who died in the road
accident on 26.12.2015. It was the case of
claimants before the claims tribunal that on
fateful day 26.12.2015 at 2:45 p.m. the
deceased Sunil Kumar Pandey with his
motorcycle along with Padam Sharma was
standing left patri of the road near culvert
(pullia) at Kichha Road, P.S. Rudrapur,
District Udhampur when the offending car
hit the deceased and his motorcycle from
back side. The accident was caused by
driver of offending car bearing no.UK06V7805 which was being driven by its driver
very rashly and negligently. The FIR was
lodged on 28.12.2015 at 9:30 pm in Police
Station Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar
against the driver of offending car and case
was registered as Case Crime No.542 of
2015 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC. The
Investigating Officer after due investigation
has submitted charge sheet against the
driver of the insured car. The claimants had
produced one Padam Sharma as PW2, who
was an eye witness of the accident to prove
the factum of accident.

4.
 The
claim
petition
was
contested by owner of vehicle as well as
insurer of vehicle denying rash and
negligent driving of driver. The factum of
accident was not disputed by the owner and
insurer of offending car.

5. The claims tribunal has framed
four issues for determination as rash and
negligent driving of car driver, validity of
driving licence of car driver, insurance of
car and quantum of compensation and
liability of payment.

6. The claims tribunal after
considering the evidence and materials,
which
are
available
on
record
has
dismissed the claim petition vide judgment
and order dated 04.09.2018, which is
impugned in the present appeal.

7. The claims tribunal has recorded
the findings while deciding the issue no.1
that the first information report was lodged
after two days of the accident on
28.12.2015 whereas, the accident occurred
on 26.12.2015 and the claimants failed to
explain the delay in lodging the first
information report. The claims tribunal has
further recorded the finding that the owner
of the vehicle is resident of District Bareilly
whereas the vehicle was insured at the
office of insurance company at Allahabad
as such there must be some connection of
owner to Allahabad. The claimants are also
resident of Allahabad and it appears that
the claimants with the collusion of owner
of vehicle has planted the insured car in the
accident only to get compensation from the
respondent insurance company. The claims
tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on
the ground that the involvement of insured
car in the accident was not proved.

8. It is submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants that the claims
tribunal has recorded a perverse finding of
fact while dismissing the claim petition.
The FIR was lodged just after two days of
the accident and the delay has already been
explained by the claimants before the
claims
tribunal.
The
informant
who
appeared as PW2 before the claims tribunal
has stated that he was busy in providing
medical assistance to the deceased. He
7 All. Smt. Preeti Pandey & Ors. Vs. Mohit Khandelwal & Ors.
841
immediately brought the deceased to
Narayan Trauma Centre, Bilaspur Road,
Rudrapur. Looking at the critical position
he was referred to Braj Lal Hospital,
Haldwani, where he died during the course
of treatment. After death, the body of the
deceased was brought to Allahabad and
after returning from Allahabad, he lodged
the
first
information
report.
The
Investigating Officer after due investigation
found that the accident was caused by car
bearing no.UK06V7805 which was being
driven by its driver very rashly and
negligently, has submitted charge sheet
against the driver of offending car. The
presence of informant PW2 Padam Sharma
at the place of accident was fully
established. It is further submitted that the
claims tribunal has recorded a perverse
findings of fact that the vehicle was insured
by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at
Allahabad whereas as per insurance policy
the issuing office of insurance policy is
Bareilly. The copy of insurance policy has
been annexed as Annexure 6 of the
affidavit filed in support of the appeal.
Lastly it is submitted that the claims
tribunal has misread the insurance policy
which was issued by the Office of
Insurance
Company
at
Bareilly
and
perverse findings of fact has been recorded
that the insurance policy was issued by the
Allahabad Office and there was some
connection of the owner of vehicle to
District Allahabad. The claims tribunal has
rejected the claim petition only on the
presumption that there must be some
relation of owner with the claimants where
as there was no evidence or material before
the claims tribunal that there was any
connection of claimants with the owner of
the vehicle as the claimants are residents of
Allahabad whereas, the owner is resident of
District Bareilly. The claims Tribunal has
also failed to consider that the independent
agency has already submitted charge sheet
against the driver of offending car. Lastly it
is submitted that the claim petition was
dismissed
on
the
ground
of
noninvolvement of insured car whereas the
owner as well as insurer of car have not
denied the involvement of car in the
accident but only rash and negligent
driving of car driver was denied.

9. On the other hand, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of owner of
the vehicle has denied the involvement of
car in the accident and it is submitted that
the accident was caused by some unknown
vehicle and his car has been planted by the
claimants.
Similarly,
the
insurance
company has also denied the involvement
of car and it is submitted by learned
counsel of insurance company that the
claims tribunal has recorded the finding
that the driver of offending car was not
having valid and effective driving license
and the insured car was plied in violation of
terms and conditions of Insurane Policy
and as such the insurance company is not
liable to pay any compensation to the
claimants.

10.

Considered
the
rival
submission of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records.

11. The claim petition filed by
claimants
claiming
compensation
on
account of death of Sunil Kumar Pandey,
who died in a road accident, which
occurred on 26.12.2015 was dismissed by
claims tribunal mainly on two grounds-

 a) Delay of two days in lodging
the first informatin report.

 b) Collusion of claimants with the
owner of insured car.
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
12. So far as delay in lodging the
first information report, it has been
explained by the informant that he was
accompanying with the deceased at the
time of accident. The deceased had
received grevious injuries in the accident.
He brought the deceased to the hospital and
after the death, brought the dead body to
Allahabad. After returning from Allahabad,
the first information report was lodged by
him. There is only two days delay and
delay has been properly explained by the
informant before the claims Tribunal. The
Investigating Officer after due investigation
has submitted charge sheet against the
driver of offending car. The claimants had
produced Padam Sharma as PW2, who was
an eye witness of the accident and had
proved the factum of accident as well as
involvement of insured car in the accident.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ravi versus Badrinarayan & Ors.
reported in AIR 2011 Supreme Court
1226 has held that the delay in lodging the
first information report would not be fatal
and claim petition under the Motor Vehilce
Act need not be dismissed on that ground.
Relevant paragraph nos.20 and 21 are
reproduced herein below :

 "20. It is well-settled that delay
in lodging 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. 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 scrutinized more carefully. If 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.

 21. The purpose of lodging the
FIR in such type of cases is primarily to
intimate the police to initiate investigation
of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR
certainly proves 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 variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed
lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the
victim are able to regain a certain level of
tranquility 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."

14. A Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Smt. Sumitra Kaur and
another
vs.
New
India
Assurance
Company
Ltd.
through
Divisional
Manager and another reported in 2012
(4) T.A.C. 799 (All.) has held that
7 All. Smt. Preeti Pandey & Ors. Vs. Mohit Khandelwal & Ors.
843
registration of first information report is not
necessary to decide the claim petition filed
under the Motor Vehicles Act, if the
claimants have proved the involvement of
vehicle as well as rash and negligent
driving of offending vehicle by producing
cogent evidence. The claims tribunal may
decide the claim petition on merits and
non-registration of first information report
will not defeat the case of the claimants.
Relevant
paragraphs
7
and
8
are
reproduced hereinbelow:

 "7. Power conferred to Tribunal
under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles
Act is an independent power whereby the
Tribunal has been required to hold an
inquiry with regard to accidet and award of
compensation. This should be done after
providing opportunity of hearing to both
parties. Even where no first information
report is lodged the Tribunal has ample
power to hold an inquiry and admit or
reject the claim petition keeping in view the
evidence on record.

 8. Under U.P. Motor Vehilce
Rules, 1998 it has been provided that how
the Tribunal shall record evidence and deal
with the case. Lodging the first information
report or inquest report is not necessary.
What is required for the Tribunal is that it
must ascertain the involvement of the
victim in the accident and genuineness of
claim. In case the Tribunal is satisfied from
the evidence on record that accident
occurred and the victim suffered injuries
then even if no first information report has
been lodged and postmortem is made
available it may award the compensation."

15. A similar view was also taken
by Karnataka High Court in the case of
Meenakshamma vs. B. Hanumanthappa
and another reported in 1997(1) T.A.C.
50 (Kant) that non-registration of criminal
case regarding the accident does not give
rise to any adverse inference that no such
motor
accident
occurred.
Relevant
paragraph 6 is reproduced hereinbelow:

 "6. Sri O. Mahesh - learned
Counsel for respondent No. 2 contended
that an adverse inference will have to be
drawn for non-registration of a criminal
case against the driver in a given case. This
contention cannot be accepted. The claim is
a summary civil proceedings wherein the
claimant is required to prove the rash and
negligent
driving
of
the
vehicle
by
independent
evidence.
Hence,
nonregistration of a police case regarding the
accident does not give rise to any adverse
inference that no such motor accident
occurred. The further contention of the
learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 that
the Medical Officer, who is duty bound to
report the lego-medical case to the police,
has not reported the same and this
circumstance also is adverse to the claim of
the claimant has no merit. It is not unusual
for a Medical Officer of the hospital in not
reporting the lego-medical case to the
police. The failure on the part of the
Medical
Officer
to
exercise
the
basic/primary duty to report the legomedical case to the police is also no
circumstance to deny the claim of the
claimant if the evidence on record
establishes the claim from other acceptable
evidence. The Tribunal on consideration of
the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 has held that
the accident was due to negligent driving of
the tiller causing injuries, to the claimant. I
find from the discussion made above that
the finding is based on evidence and there
is no ground to deviate from the finding."

16. Similarly in the case of Sunita
and Ors. Versus Rajasthan State Road
844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in
AIR 2019 Supreme Court 994, it has been
held by Hon'ble Apex Court that strict
principles of evidence and standards of
proof
like
in
a
criminal
trial
are
inapplicable in motor accident claims
cases. The relevant paragraph no.28 is
reproduced herein below :

 "28. Clearly, the evidence given
by Bhagchand withstood the respondents'
scrutiny and the respondents were unable
to shake his evidence. In turn, the High
Court has failed to take note of the absence
of cross examination of this witness by the
respondents, leave alone the Tribunal's
finding
on
the
same,
and
instead,
deliberated
on
the
reliability
of
Bhagchand's (A.D.2) evidence from the
viewpoint of him not being named in the list
of
eye
witnesses
in
the
criminal
proceedings, without even mentioning as to
why such absence from the list is fatal to
the case of the appellants. This approach of
the High Court is mystifying, especially in
light of this Court's observation [as set out
in Parmeshwari (supra) and reiterated in
Mangla Ram (supra)] that the strict
principles of proof in a criminal case will not
be applicable in a claim for compensation
under the Act and further, that the standard
to be followed in such claims is one of
preponderance of probability rather than one
of proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is
nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a
witness in motor accident claim who has not
been named in the list of witnesses in the
criminal case. What is essential is that the
opposite party should get a fair opportunity
to cross examine the concerned witness.
Once that is done, it will not be open to them
to complain about any prejudice caused to
them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the
veracity of the witness, the same should have
come out in cross examination, for which
opportunity was granted to the respondents
by the Tribunal."

17. Similar view was taken by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anita
Sharma & Ors. Versus The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in
2021 (1) SCC 171. The relevant paragraph
no.22 is reproduced herein below:

 "22. Equally, we are concerned
over the failure of the High Court to be
cognizant of the fact that strict principles of
evidence and standards of proof like in a
criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT
claim cases. The standard of proof in such
like matters is one of preponderance of
probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable
doubt. One needs to be mindful that the
approach and role of Courts while examining
evidence in accident claim cases ought not to
be to find fault with nonexamination of some
best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a
criminal trial; but, instead should be only to
analyze the material placed on record by the
parties to ascertain whether the claimant's
version is more likely than not true. A
somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013)
10 SCC 646 wherein this Court reiterated
that:

 "7. It would hardly need a
mention that the plea of negligence on the
part of the first respondent who was driving
the pickup van as setup by the claimants
was required to be decided by the learned
Tribunal
on
the
touchstone
of
preponderance
of
probabilities
and
certainly not on the basis of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. (Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530)"

18. It is well settled law that strict
proof of evidence are not applicable in the
7 All. State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & Ors.
845
case of motor accident and the claim
petition under the Motor Vehicle Act
would not be dismissed on the ground of
delay in lodging the first informant report.

19. The claims tribunal has
recorded perverse findings of fact that there
was collusion in between the claimants and
owner of the vehicle as the owner is
resident of Bareilly but the vehicle was
insured at Allahabad and the claimants are
also resident of Allahabad whereas, from
the bare perusal of insurance policy, it is
apparent that the vehicle was insured by the
Bareilly office. The finding recorded by the
claims tribunal in this regard is against the
evidence and materials which are available
on record and it appears that the claims
tribunal without examining the evidence in
proper manner and without application of
judicial mind has recorded the incorrect
finding that the vehicle was insured from
Allahabad. The claims Tribunal has also
erred in holding that the involvement of car
was not proved whereas, the involvement
of car was not denied either by the owner
or by the insurance company before the
claims Tribunal and only negligence of
driver was denied. The claimants has fully
established the involvement of the car in
the accident and the opposite parties have
not led any evidence in rebuttal and even
the driver of car was not produced to deny
the involvement of car.

20. In view of the above discussion,
the order impugned dated 04.09.2018 passed
by the claims Tribunal is without application
of judicial mind and the finding recorded by
the claims Tribunal with regard to noninvolvement of insured car in the accident is
perverse and is against the evidence and
materials which are available on record. The
claims
Tribunal
has
committed
gross
illegality in dismissing the claim petition. The
court is of the view that the claimants have
fully proved the involvement of insured car in
the accident as well as rash and negligent
driving of driver of insured car by producing
cogent evidence. The issue no.1 is decided in
favour of claimants/appellants.

21. The first appeal from order filed
by the claimants-appellants is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 04.09.2018 passed
by the Additional District Judge, Court
no.10/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Allahabad in MACP No.178 of 2016 is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the
concerned claims Tribunal to decide the
claim petition as fresh. The claims
Tribunal is directed to decide issue nos. 2,
3 and 4 regarding validity of driving
licence,
insurance
of
offending
car,
quantum of compensation and liability of
payment,
as
fresh
after
affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned expeditiously preferably within
a period of six months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order
without granting any undue adjournment
to either of the parties.

22. Office is directed to remit back
the record of claims tribunal immediately to
the concerned claims Tribunal.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 845
CIVIL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Government Appeal No. 31 of 1991

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Karan Singh & Ors. ...Respondents