# Sunil Kumar v. Mohd. Shadab & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 984
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-09
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 1115 of 2010
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-v-mohd-shadab-ors-44974
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Sections 166, 168 & 173 -
Pleadings & proof - Degree of proof - in
accident claim cases the accident is to be
proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities & it need not be proved
beyond reasonable doubt like in a
criminal trial - approach of the Tribunal
should be to make a holistic analysis of
the entire pleadings and evidence, by
applying the principles of preponderance
of probabilities. (Para 13)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Sections 166, 168 & 173 -
Pleadings & proof - Non-examination of
pillion rider - Effect - Not fatal when
sufficient evidence already on record

Held - Non-examination of the pillion rider not
fatal because approach in examining the
evidence in accident claim cases is not to find
out fault with non-examination of some "best"
eyewitness in the case but to analyse the
evidence already on record to ascertain
whether that is sufficient to answer the
matters in issue on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability (Para 19)

C. Motor Vehicle Accident - Site Plan -
Reliance - Site Plan could not have been
relied to discard the accident without its
being proved by the concerned police
officer who prepared the Site Plan or
other corroborative evidence (Para 20)

Tribunal dismissed Motor Accident Claim
petition on the ground of certain minor
discrepancies in the statements & FIR Held -
Evidence could not have been discarded on
the basis of minor discrepancies and the delay
in lodging the FIR and the Site Plan - Accident
not denied by the respondents - After
investigation charge-sheet filed against the
driver of the vehicle - Approach of tribunal
should be holistic analysis of the entire
pleadings and evidence by applying the
4 All. Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab & Ors.
985
principles of preponderance of probability.
(Para 6)

First Appeal from Order partly allowed.
(E-5)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

984 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against the conventional head which is
Rs. 41,000/-, hence, the total amount
comes
 to Rs. 2785442/-.

13. In view of above, the total
amount of compensation to which the
claimants are entitled shall be Rs.
2785442/-. The learned Tribunal has
calculated it to be Rs. 2785496/- which is
54 rupees more and that appears to be
arithmetical mistake and the same is
corrected
accordingly
to
mean
Rs.
2785442/-

14. In view of above discussion, the
compensation
amount
is
corrected
accordingly and the appeal is finally
disposed of. Stay if any shall stand
vacated.

15. The office is directed to remit
the amount of Rs. 25000/- deposited at the
time of filing appeal to be adjusted
against the awarded amount.

16.

Office
is
directed
to
communicated the certified copy of this
order
to
the
court
concerned
for
information and necessary compliance.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A984

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

FAFO No. 1115 of 2010

Sunil Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Shadab & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Shakeel Ahmad Ansari, Rajendra Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Alok Kumar Srivastava, B.Q. Siddiqui

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Sections 166, 168 & 173 -
Pleadings & proof - Degree of proof - in
accident claim cases the accident is to be
proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities & it need not be proved
beyond reasonable doubt like in a
criminal trial - approach of the Tribunal
should be to make a holistic analysis of
the entire pleadings and evidence, by
applying the principles of preponderance
of probabilities. (Para 13)

B. Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
1988) - Sections 166, 168 & 173 -
Pleadings & proof - Non-examination of
pillion rider - Effect - Not fatal when
sufficient evidence already on record

Held - Non-examination of the pillion rider not
fatal because approach in examining the
evidence in accident claim cases is not to find
out fault with non-examination of some "best"
eyewitness in the case but to analyse the
evidence already on record to ascertain
whether that is sufficient to answer the
matters in issue on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability (Para 19)

C. Motor Vehicle Accident - Site Plan -
Reliance - Site Plan could not have been
relied to discard the accident without its
being proved by the concerned police
officer who prepared the Site Plan or
other corroborative evidence (Para 20)

Tribunal dismissed Motor Accident Claim
petition on the ground of certain minor
discrepancies in the statements & FIR Held -
Evidence could not have been discarded on
the basis of minor discrepancies and the delay
in lodging the FIR and the Site Plan - Accident
not denied by the respondents - After
investigation charge-sheet filed against the
driver of the vehicle - Approach of tribunal
should be holistic analysis of the entire
pleadings and evidence by applying the
4 All. Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab & Ors.
985
principles of preponderance of probability.
(Para 6)

First Appeal from Order partly allowed.
(E-5)

List of cases cited: -

1. Bimla Devi & Ors Vs Himanchal Raod
Transport Corp & Ors (2009) 13 SCC 530

2. Dulcina Fernandes & Ors Vs Joaquim Xavier
Cruz & anr (2013) 10 SCC 646

3. Sunita & Others Vs Raj St Rd Transport
Corp & Others Manu/SC/0204/2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.)

1. Heard, Shri Rajendra Jaiswal,
learned counsel for the appellant and Shri
Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel
for the respondent no.1.

2. This first appeal from order has
been filed against the judgment and order
dated
31.05.2010
passed
in
Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.180 of 2009
(Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab &
Another) by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal / Additional District Judge,
Court No.6, Unnao by means of which the
claim petition filed by the appellant has
been dismissed.

3. The brief facts, for disposal of the
present appeal, are that on 15.04.2009 the
appellant / claimant was going alongwith
his brother Shyam Lal for taking medicine
to village Nevarna on foot on his left side
of road. As he alongwith his father
reached at some distance before the
Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Nevarna
at about 09:30 A.M., the driver of the
Scorpio Jeep having Registration No.UP35-F-7800, driving rashly and negligently,
hit the appellant after bringing it on the
left side. Consequently, the appellant
suffered serious injuries. The right leg of
the appellant was broken. The accident
was seen by the father of the appellant
and Raghuveer S/o Putti Lal R/o village-
Nevarna and others and the number of the
vehicle was noted down. The appellant
was admitted in the District Hospital,
Unnao in the injured condition. The
appellant remained there for treatment
w.e.f. 15.04.2009 to 11.05.2009 and the
treatment was going on. The FIR of the
accident was lodged by the father of the
appellant at Police Station- Achalganj,
District- Unnao against the driver. In case
the driver of the vehicle would have
driven the vehicle cautiously the accident
would not have happened. With the
aforesaid allegations the claim petition
was filed claiming the compensation.

4. The claim petition was contested
by the respondent no.1 i.e. the owner of
the
vehicle
denying
most
of
the
allegations and also the involvement of
his vehicle in the accident. It has been
stated in paragraph-24 that at the alleged
date and time of accident the accident had
not occurred by vehicle No.UP-35-F-7800
because at the time of accident the vehicle
was being driven by a competent driver
namely Mukesh S/o Santosh Pasi R/o
Village-
Jamuka,
Police
Station-
Achalganj, District- Unnao with a very
slow speed on the left side of the road.
Therefore, the question of accident does
not arise. The FIR has been lodged with a
delay after consultation with the intention
to claim the compensation after noting
down the number of his vehicle. It has
further been stated
in the
written
statement that the vehicle was insured
with the respondent no.2 i.e. Reliance
General Insurance Company Limited and
in case any liability for payment of
986 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compensation is made out the same is to
be paid by insurance company. The
respondent no.2 i.e Reliance General
Insurance Company Limited had also
filed its written statement. It has also been
stated in written statement that the driver
of the vehicle No.UP-35-F-7800 was not
negligent. It was further stated in
paragraph-11 that the accident was caused
by the negligence of the Sunil Kumar as
such the answering opposite party is not
liable to pay any compensation.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of
the parties six issues were framed. On
behalf of the appellant-claimant- Sunil
Kumar as PW-1 and Shyam Lal Yadav as
PW-2 were got examined. On behalf of
the respondents no oral evidence was
adduced. On behalf of the appellant the
original FIR and the copy of the release
order of the vehicle in question issued
from the Court, the copy of the
Registration Certificate, Beema Policy of
the vehicle in question, Medical Report of
Sunil Kumar, the Site Plan of the spot of
the accident, copy of the X-Ray Report of
the appellant, report of the doctor for XRay,
the
Medicines
taken
by
the
appellant, Cash Memo and Receipts of the
medicines taken by the appellant /
claimant were filed. On behalf of the
respondent-insurance company copy of
the Beema Policy was filed. After hearing
learned counsel for the parties and
material available on record, the learned
tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

6. Submission of learned counsel for
the appellant was that the accident had
occurred on 15.04.2009 and he was
admitted on the same date in the district
hospital, Unnao and remained admitted up
to 11.05.2009. After examination of the
appellant the doctor had recommended for
X-Ray of the right leg. In the X-Ray
report fracture was found. The appellant
and his father who was an eye-witness
had adduced their evidence. The father of
the appellant had stated that he was going
with the appellant at the time of accident
and he had seen the number of the vehicle
after accident. The FIR was lodged by the
father of the appellant and the cause of the
delay has been explained by him. But the
learned tribunal has not relied on the
evidence as adduced by the appellant on
the ground of certain minor discrepancies
in the statements and the FIR in an illegal
manner while the evidence could not have
been discarded on the basis of minor
discrepancies and the delay in lodging the
FIR and the Site Plan. In fact the accident
has not been denied by the respondents. It
is apparent from the written statement
filed by the respondents.

7. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted
that the vehicle of the respondent no.1
was not involved in the accident. There
were discrepancies in the evidence of the
appellant and his father even about the
place of the accident. The appellant had
stated in his evidence that he was going
on his left side and the Nevarna comes
after going directly from his village for
which there is no need of coming on the
road. As per the evidence of the appellant
he had got injuries in his right leg, back
and shoulders but the said injuries are not
mentioned in the medical examination
report. The appellant had stated in his
evidence that the accident had occurred at
some distance prior to the Government
Ayurvedik Hospital while the spot of
accident has been shown at a far distance
of triangle on the north side in the Site
Plan. The eye-witness mentioned in the
FIR was not produced by the appellant.
4 All. Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab & Ors.
987
The learned tribunal after considering the
pleadings and evidence on record has
rightly come to the conclusion that the
appellant
has
failed
to
proof
the
involvement of the vehicle of the
respondent no.1 in the accident. There is
no error or illegality in the findings
recorded by the learned tribunal.

8. On the basis of above, learned
counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted
that the appeal has been filed on
misconceived grounds which is liable to
be dismissed.

9. I have considered the submissions
of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the records.

10. The claim petition was filed by
the appellant claiming compensation on
account of the alleged accident on
15.04.2009 from Scorpio Jeep No.UP-35F-7800 alleging therein that the appellant
/ claimant was going on 15.04.2009
alongwith his father Shyam Lal for taking
medicines to village Nevarna on foot on
his left side of road. At about 09:30 A.M.,
as soon as he reached at the some distance
before
the
Government
Ayurvedic
Hospital, Nevarna, the Scorpio Jeep
No.UP-35-F-7800
came
from
the
backside without giving horn, rashly and
negligently and it's driver hit the appellant
in which he suffered serious injuries in his
right leg which was broken. The accident
was seen by his father and Raghuveer S/o
Putti Lal R/o Village-Nevarna and others
present on the spot and the number of the
vehicle was noted down and the appellant
was admitted in the District Hospital,
Unnao. The respondent no.1 while filing
his written statement has not denied the
accident on the date, time and place
alleged in the claim petition. The only
plea for non-involvement of his vehicle in
the accident is that the vehicle was being
driven by the competent driver namely
Mukesh with a very slow speed and on his
left side, therefore it is apparent that the
accident and the presence of the vehicle
of the respondent no.1 on the date, time
and place of the alleged accident has not
been denied by the respondent no.1. The
respondent no.2 has also not denied the
accident rather it has stated on the one
hand that the driver of the vehicle No.UP35-F-7800 was not negligent and on the
other hand that the accident was caused
due to negligence of Sunil Kumar i.e the
driver of vehicle in question as such the
answering opposite party is not liable to
pay any compensation.

11. The appellant was admitted on
15.04.2009 in the Government Hospital,
Unnao on the date on which the accident
occurred and he was medically examined
and the X-Ray of right leg was advised
and in the X-Ray fracture was found. The
named FIR was lodged on 22.04.209
against the driver of the vehicle and it has
also been disclosed in the FIR that on
account of the treatment of the appellant
being going on he could not lodge the FIR
earlier. After investigation the chargesheet has also been filed against the
Mukesh S/o Santosh Pasi R/o Jamuka,
Police
Station-
Achalganj,
District-
Unnao, a copy of which has been filed
before the claims tribunal vide paper
no.24 Ga/3.

12. The learned tribunal without
considering the aforesaid facts dismissed
the claim petition after evaluating the
evidence held that since the vehicle in
question had not been stopped at the place
of accident, therefore evidence of the
appellant and his father that they had seen
988 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the number of the vehicle is not
believable and there is contradiction in the
place of accident in the statement of the
witnesses and it has not been stated that
how the informant came to know about
the registration number and how he came
to know about the name and address of
the driver and the injuries do not tally
with the medical examination report etc.
The finding is not based on correct
appreciation of record and evidence
because the presence of the vehicle in
question at the place of alleged accident
and it being driven by Mukesh, the driver
named in the FIR against whom the
charge-sheet has been filed has not been
denied by the respondents rather it has
been stated in written statement that the
driver of the vehicle in question was
driving the vehicle with very slow speed
and on his left side and as per the
statement of the appellant and his father
they were also going on the left side of
the road. But it has not been considered
by the learned tribunal.

13. The learned tribunal has
examined the evidence and recorded
findings as if the allegations were to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt while it
is settled proposition of law that in
accident claim cases the accident is to be
proved on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities and it need not be proved
beyond reasonable doubt like criminal
trial. The approach of tribunal should be
holistic analysis of the entire pleadings
and evidence by applying the principles of
preponderance of probability.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Bimla Devi & Others Vs.
Himanchal Raod Transport Corporation
& Others; (2009) 13 SCC 530 has held
that the claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could
not have been applied. The relevant
paragraph-15 is extracted 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 beenapplied. For the said purpose, the
High Court should have taken into
consideration the respective stories set forth
by both the parties."

15. In the present case after lodging
of
the
FIR
the
investigation
was
conducted and a charge-sheet has also
been filed against the named driver of the
vehicle in question which has not been
considered by the learned tribunal while
deciding the claim petition.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Dulcina Fernandes & Others Vs. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz & Another; (2013) 10 SCC 646
has examined the situation where the evidence
of eyewitness was discarded by the tribunal and
that the respondent in that case was acquitted in
the criminal case concerning the accident.
However, the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that
it can not be overlooked that upon investigation
of the case, registered against respondent,
prima facie, materials showing negligence were
found to put him on trial.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court
considered the aforesaid judgment in the
case of Sunita & Others Vs. Rajasthan
4 All. Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab & Ors.
989
State Road Transport Corporation &
Others; Manu/SC/0204/2019 and held as
under in paragraph-25:-

"25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this
Court examined similar situation where
the evidence of claimant's eyewitness was
discarded by the Tribunal and that the
respondent in that case was acquitted in
the criminal case concerning the accident.
This Court, however, opined that it cannot
be overlooked that upon investigation of
the
case
registered
against
the
respondent,
prima
facie,
materials
showing negligence were found to put him
on trial. The Court restated the settled
principle that the evidence of the
claimants ought to be examined by the
Tribunal
on
the
touchstone
of
preponderance
of
probability
and
certainly the standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt could not have been
applied as noted in Bimla Devi. In paras
8 & 9 of the reported decision, the dictum
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Shila Datta10, has been adverted to as
under: (Dulcina Fernandes case, SCC p.
650)

"8. In United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta while considering
the nature of a claim petition under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a threeJudge
Bench of this Court has culled out certain
propositions of which Propositions (ii),
(v) and (vi) would be relevant to the facts
of the present case and, therefore, may be
extracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 518, para
10) '10. (ii) The rules of the pleadings do
not strictly apply as the claimant is
required to make an application in a form
prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is
no pleading where the proceedings are
suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. * * *

(v)
Though
the
Tribunal
adjudicates on a claim and determines the
compensation, it does not do so as in an
adversarial litigation. ...

(vi) The Tribunal is required to
follow such summary procedure as it
thinks fit. It may choose one or more
persons possessing special knowledge of
and matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it
in holding the enquiry.'

9.
The
following
further
observation available in para 10 of the
Report would require specific note: (Shila
Datta case, SCC p. 519) '10. ... We have
referred to the aforesaid provisions to
show that an award by the Tribunal
cannot be seen as an adversarial
adjudication between the litigating parties
to a dispute, but a statutory determination
of compensation on the occurrence of an
accident, after due enquiry, in accordance
with the statute.'"

In
para
10
of
Dulcina
Fernandes,
the
Court
opined
that
nonexamination of witness per se cannot
be treated as fatal to the claim set up
before the Tribunal. In other words, the
approach of the Tribunal should be
holistic analysis of the entire pleadings
and evidence by applying the principles of
preponderance of probability."

It is thus well settled that in
motor accident claim cases, once the
foundational fact, namely, the actual
occurrence of the accident, has been
established, then the Tribunal's role
would be to calculate the quantum of just
compensation if the accident had taken
place by reason of negligence of the
driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing
so, the Tribunal would not be strictly
bound by the pleadings of the parties.
Notably, while deciding cases arising out
of motor vehicle accidents, the standard
990 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of proof to be borne in mind must be of
preponderance of probability and not the
strict standard of proof beyond all
reasonable doubt which is followed in
criminal cases."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid judgment of Sunia and Others
(Supra) has also considered the effect of
the lodging of the FIR and charge-sheet
which were not challenged, in paragraph23, which is extracted below:-

"23. The Tribunal had justly
accepted the appellants' contention that
the respondents did not challenge the
propriety of the said FIR No. 247/2011
(Exh. 1) and chargesheet (Exh. 2) before
any authority. The only defence raised by
the respondents to this plea was that the
said FIR No. 247/2011 was based on
wrong facts and was filed in connivance
between the appellants/complainants and
the police, against which the respondents
complained to the incharge of the police
station and the District Superintendent of
Police but to no avail. Apart from this
bald assertion, no evidence was produced
by the respondents before the Tribunal to
prove this point. The filing of the FIR was
followed by the filing of the chargesheet
against respondent No.2 for offences
under u/Sections 279, 337 and 304A of
the IPC and Sections 134/187 of the Act,
which, again, reinforces the allegations in
the said FIR insofar as the occurrence of
the accident was concerned and the role
of respondent No.2 in causing such
accident. Be that as it 27 may, the High
Court has not even made a mention, let
alone record a finding, of any impropriety
against FIR 247/2011 (Exh. 1) or
chargesheet (Exh. 2) or the conclusion
reached by the Tribunal in that regard.
Yet, the FIR and the Chargesheet has
been found to be deficient by the High
Court."

19. The Hon'ble Apex Court also
held in aforesaid judgment of Sunita and
Others (Supra) that the non-examination
of the pillion rider would not be fatal to
the case of the appellants because the
approach in examining the evidence in
accident claim cases is not to find out
fault with non-examination of some "best"
eyewitness in the case but to analyse the
evidence already on record to ascertain
whether that is sufficient to answer the
matters in issue on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. Thus, nonexamination of any age witness can not be
fatal. of any The relevant paragraph-31 is
extracted below:-

"31. Similarly, the issue of
nonexamination of the pillion rider,
Rajulal Khateek, would not be fatal to the
case of the appellants. The approach in
examining the evidence in accident claim
cases is not to find fault with non
examination of some "best" eye witness in
the case but to analyse the evidence
already on record to ascertain whether
that is sufficient to answer the matters in
issue on the touchstone of preponderance
of probability. This court, in Dulcina
Fernandes (supra), faced a similar
situation where the evidence of claimant's
eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal
and the respondent was acquitted in the
criminal case concerning the accident."

20. So far as the findings recorded
by the learned tribunal in regard to the
Site Plan is concerned that could not have
been relied to discard the accident without
its being proved by the concerned police
officer who prepared the Site Plan or
other
corroborative
evidence.
The
4 All. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Raj Narayan & Ors.
991
paragraph-33 of Sunita and Others
(Supra) of the Hon'ble Apex Court is
relevant in this regard, which is extracted
below:-

"33. The site plan (Exh. 3) has
been produced in evidence before the
Tribunal by witness A.D. 1 (appellant
No.1 herein) and the record seems to
indicate that the accident occurred in the
middle of the road. However, the exact
location of the accident, as marked out in
the site plan, has not been explained
muchless proved through a competent
witness by the respondents to substantiate
their defence. Besides, the concerned
police official who prepared the site plan
has also not been examined. While the
existence of the site plan may not be in
doubt, it is difficult to accept the theory
propounded on the basis of the site plan
to record a finding against the appellants
regarding
negligence
attributable
to
deceased Sitaram, moreso in absence of
ocular evidence to prove and explain the
contents of the site plan."

21. In view of above, this Court is of
the view that the learned tribunal though
has discussed the evidence in detail to
record the finding that the appellant has
failed to prove the involvement of the
vehicle in question in the alleged accident
but has not considered the aforesaid facts,
therefore the judgment passed by the
learned tribunal is not sustainable and is
liable to be set-aside with direction to the
concerned tribunal to decide the claim
petition afresh after considering the
evidence and material available on record
in accordance with law.

22. The appeal is, accordingly,
partly allowed. The judgment and order
dated
31.05.2010
passed
in
Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.180 of 2009
(Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab and
Another) by Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal / Additional District Judge,
Court No.6, Unnao is set-aside. The
matter is remitted back to the concerned
claims tribunal for deciding afresh in
accordance with law and the observations
made here-in-above expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of the certified
copy of this order and the record.

23. No orders as to cost.

24. The lower court record shall be
remitted back to the concerned tribunal
within a period of fifteen days from today.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A991

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

FAFO No. 1517 of 2011

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Raj Narayan & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, Sri Ashok
Kumar Kesharwani, Sri Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Dheeraj Kumar Yadav, Sri
Janardan Prasad Patel, Sri Nripendra
Mishra

A. Civil Law - Motor Accident claim -
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) -
Sections 166 & 168 - Compensation -