# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Noida v. Smt. Barisa & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 197
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-02
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2473 of 2009
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-noida-v-smt-barisa-ors-45928
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Contributory negligence and Composite
Negligence-Meaning-A person who either
contributes or is author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to the
accident having taken place. (Para 7)
B. Civil Law -Motor Accident ClaimVehicles of unequal magnitude - Liability of
both Drivers as tortfeasors - Motorcycle driver
died on spot - Truck came on the wrong side
and caused the accident - Truck driver has not
stepped into the witness box - No evidence to
demonstrate that the deceased was a coauthor
of accident - Held, the decision of the Tribunal
holding the driver of the insured vehicle of the
appellant to be negligent cannot be disturbed.
(Para 8, 9 and 10)
C. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Breach of Policy - Burden of proof - The
driving licence if is said to be fake the insurance
company should have prove the same - The
finding of fact of the Tribunal as far as non
breach of policy condition cannot be found fault
with. (Para 12)
D. Motor Accident Claim - Computation of
Compensation
-
Deduction
for
personal
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expenses - For the death of a bachelor, 50%
should be deducted for the personal expenses.
(Para 17)
E. Civil Law -Motor Accident ClaimComputation of Compensation - Multiplier -
Basis of application - Multiplier should be based
on the age of the deceased and not on the age
of the parents. (Para 17)
Appeal of Claimant partly allowed.
One Appeal of Insurance Company partly
allowed.
Another Appeal of Insurance Company
dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

9 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Noida Vs. Smt. Barisa & Ors.
197
1993 AIR SCW 2366) in this behalf is of no
assistance as that case related to a single
individual and there was specific evidence
available in regard to the income. Therefore, the
proper course would be to award a uniform
amount keeping in view the principles relating
to award of compensation in public law remedy
cases reserving liberty to the legal heirs of
deceased victims to claim additional amount
wherever they were not satisfied with the
amount awarded. Taking note of the facts and
circumstances, the amount of compensation
awarded in public law remedy cases, and the
need to provide a deterrent, we are of the view
that award of Rs. 10 lakhs in the case of persons
aged above 20 years and Rs. 7.5 lakhs in regard
to those who were 20 years or below as on the
date of the incident, would be appropriate. We
do not propose to disturb the award of Rs. 1
lakh each in the case of injured. The amount
awarded as compensation will carry interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of writ
petition as ordered by the High Court, reserve
liberty to the victims or the LRs. of the victims
as the case may be to seek higher remedy
wherever they are not satisfied with the
compensation. Any increase shall be borne by
the Licensee (theatre owner) exclusively."

24. In view of the above legal position
in matters of compensation to the injured
victim
who
virtually
suffered
100%
incapability to earn his livelihood and
rather became a life long liability upon the
parents, we do not find any manifest error
in the award qua compensation awarded.
The First Appeal From Order, accordingly,
lacks merit and is rejected.

25. Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the
appellant shall be remitted to the tribunal
for being adjusted against the award.
----------
(2020)09ILR A197
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.06.2020

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2473 of 2009
&
First Appeal From Order No. 734 of 2011 &
2538 of 2019

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Noida
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Barisa & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Amit Manohar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Nigamendra Shukla

A. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Contributory negligence and Composite
Negligence-Meaning-A person who either
contributes or is author of the accident
would be liable for his contribution to the
accident having taken place. (Para 7)
B. Civil Law -Motor Accident ClaimVehicles of unequal magnitude - Liability of
both Drivers as tortfeasors - Motorcycle driver
died on spot - Truck came on the wrong side
and caused the accident - Truck driver has not
stepped into the witness box - No evidence to
demonstrate that the deceased was a coauthor
of accident - Held, the decision of the Tribunal
holding the driver of the insured vehicle of the
appellant to be negligent cannot be disturbed.
(Para 8, 9 and 10)
C. Civil Law -Motor Accident Claim -
Breach of Policy - Burden of proof - The
driving licence if is said to be fake the insurance
company should have prove the same - The
finding of fact of the Tribunal as far as non
breach of policy condition cannot be found fault
with. (Para 12)
D. Motor Accident Claim - Computation of
Compensation
-
Deduction
for
personal
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
expenses - For the death of a bachelor, 50%
should be deducted for the personal expenses.
(Para 17)
E. Civil Law -Motor Accident ClaimComputation of Compensation - Multiplier -
Basis of application - Multiplier should be based
on the age of the deceased and not on the age
of the parents. (Para 17)
Appeal of Claimant partly allowed.
One Appeal of Insurance Company partly
allowed.
Another Appeal of Insurance Company
dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-
1. First Appeal From Order No. 1818 of 2012;
Bajaj
Allianz
General
Insurance
Company
Limited Vs Smt. Renu Singh & ors.) decided on
19.7.2016
2. Pawan Kumar & anr Vs M/S Harkishan Dass
Mohan Lal & ors decided by Supreme Court on
29 January, 2014
3. Mohd. Siddiqui Vs National Insurance
Company Ltd., 2020 ACJ SC 751
4. Khenyei Vs New India Assurance Company
Ltd. & ors. (2015) 9 SCC 273
5. National Insurance Company Limited Vs
Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700
6. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs Mandala Ydagari Goud, (2019) 5 SCC 554
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Manohar, learned
counsel for appellant-insurance company and
Sri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsel for
respondent-claimants. Parties are referred to as
Insurance Company and claimants and or
appellant and respondent respectively as they
appear in all three appeals.

2. Two appeals, under section 173 of
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ( hereinafter
referred to as the "Act, 1988") are filed at
the instance of appellant- The New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. and one appeal, at the
instance of claimants has arisen from the
awards dated 28.3.2009 passed by Motor
Accident
Claim
Tribunal/
Additional
District Judge-I, Gautam Budh Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 174 of
2007,
whereby
compensation
of
Rs.1,96,500/- and in Motor Accident Claim
Petition
No.
177 of 2007 whereby
compensation of Rs.3,21,500/-. It is not
understood why the same Tribunal did not
decide both the claim petitions by a
common judgment and wasted or rather
copy
pasted
the
judgments
for
compensation in both the matters which
arose out of the same accident.

3. On the fateful day namely
29.6.2007 two persons were returning from
Palwal to Jewar on Motor Cycle No. U.P.-
16S-6927. As the illfated motor cycle
reached on Palwal Hamadpur Road ahead
of Jhuppa Check Post at about 7:15 p.m.
the offending Truck No. HR-37-B-5198
coming from Hamadpur side ( opposite
direction) at a very high speed in negligent
and careless manner, suddenly turned to its
right side non-metal road(kuchcha patri) of
the road and dashed against the motor cycle
causing this horrible accident in which both
the deceased sustained multiple, accidental
injuries to which one died on spot and
motor cycle was also badly damaged. At
the time of accident the deceased Raess
was driving motorcycle on extreme left
side of the road at moderate speed with full
care and caution. The accident is the result
of negligent driving of the driver of truck.
At the time of accident the driver of the
offending vehicle was driving his vehicle
being Truck No. HR-37-B-5198 at very
high speed and in a negligent, careless and
9 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Noida Vs. Smt. Barisa & Ors.
199
reckless manner without any care and
caution. It appeared that at the time of the
accident, the driver of the vehicle truck had
no control over the steering of the
offending vehicle, had the driver of
offending vehicle-truck been not negligent,
then this unfortunate accident would not
have happened.

4. It is submitted by Sri Amit
Manohar , Advocate for insurance company
that the vehicle collided in the middle of
the road and therefore not considering that
the deceased was also a coauthor of the
accident or rather he was the greator
contributor to the accident is bad and
requires to be interfered with as had the
deceased-driver of scooter taken care on
seeing the opposite vehicle coming he
would have averted the accident having
taken place. He has submitted that the
decision of the apex court in Bijoy Kumar
Dugar Versus Bidyadhar Dutta and others,
2006(2) Supreme 374 and Yerramma and
others Versus G. Krishnamurthy and
another, 2014 (4) TAC 337 SC would show
that this aspect has not been considered by
the Tribunal. The Tribunal according to the
learned counsel for the appellant Insurance
Company has misread the evidence on
record and has come to a erroneous
decision on issue of negligence.

5. As against this, learned counsel for
the respondent-claimant has relied on the
judgment of the undersigned in First
Appeal From Order No. 631 of 2005
United India Insurance company Versus
Ram Kishor and others ) decided on
7.2.1019 and has contended that in absence
of any evidence led by the insurance
company or the driver and owner of the
other offending vehicle and in absence of
proving the same the said decisions cited
by the counsel for the insurance company
cannot be made applicable in the facts of
this case as for as negligence is considered.

6. The Division Bench of this Court in
First Appeal From Order No.1818 of 2012 (
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Limited Versus Smt. Renu Singh and
others) decided on 19.7.2016 has held as
under: -

"16. The term negligence means
failure to exercise required degree of care
and caution 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
cause physical injury to person. The degree
of care required, of course, depends upon
facts in each case. On these broad
principles, negligence of drivers is required
to be assessed.

17. 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
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

18. 10th Schedule appended to
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 contain statutory
regulations for driving of motor vehicles
which also form part of every Driving
License. Clause-6 of such Regulation
clearly directs that the driver of every
motor vehicle should 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. This is termed negligence.

19. 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.

20.
In
light
of
the
above
discussion, I am 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, Courts
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.

21. 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."

7. The term contributory negligence
and
composite
negligence
has
been
discussed time and again a person who
either contributes or is author of the
accident
would
be
liable
for
his
contribution to the accident having taken
place. The Apex Court in Pawan Kumar
& Anr vs M/S Harkishan Dass Mohan
Lal & Ors decided on 29 January, 2014
has held as follows:

7. Where the plaintiff/claimant
himself is found to be a party to the
negligence the question of joint and several
liability cannot arise and the plaintiff's
claim to the extent of his own negligence,
as may be quantified, will have to be
severed. In such a situation the plaintiff can
only be held entitled to such part of
9 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Noida Vs. Smt. Barisa & Ors.
201
damages/compensation
that
is
not
attributable to his own negligence. The
above principle has been explained in T.O.
Anthony (supra) followed in K. Hemlatha
& Ors. (supra). Paras 6 and 7 of T.O.
Anthony (supra) which are relevant may be
extracted hereinbelow:

"6. "Composite negligence" refers
to the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a
result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrongdoers, it is said that the person
was injured on account of the composite
negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a
case, each wrongdoer is jointly and
severally liable to the injured for payment
of the entire damages and the injured
person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them. In such a case,
the injured need not establish the extent of
responsibility
of
each
wrongdoer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court
to determine the extent of liability of each
wrongdoer separately. On the other hand
where a person suffers injury, partly due to
the negligence on the part of another
person or persons, and partly as a result of
his own negligence, then the negligence on
the part of the injured which contributed to
the
accident
is
referred
to
as his
contributory negligence. Where the injured
is guilty of some negligence, his claim for
damages is not defeated merely by reason
of the negligence on his part but the
damages recoverable by him in respect of
the injuries stand reduced in proportion to
his contributory negligence.

7. Therefore, when two vehicles
are involved in an accident, and one of the
drivers claims compensation from the other
driver alleging negligence, and the other
driver denies negligence or claims that the
injured claimant himself was negligent,
then it becomes necessary to consider
whether the injured claimant was negligent
and if so, whether he was solely or partly
responsible for the accident and the extent
of
his
responsibility,
that
is,
his
contributory negligence. Therefore where
the injured is himself partly liable, the
principle of "composite negligence" will
not apply nor can there be an automatic
inference that the negligence was 50:50 as
has been assumed in this case. The
Tribunal ought to have examined the extent
of contributory negligence of the appellant
and thereby avoided confusion between
composite negligence and contributory
negligence. The High Court has failed to
correct the said error."

8. In view of the decision of this High
Court in United India Insurance company
Versus Ram Kishor and others ) and First
Appeal From Order No. 79 of 2000
wherein concept of considering negligence
are considered in cases where two vehicles
are
involved
which
are
of unequal
magnitude can it be said that both the
drivers have to be considered to be
tortfeasors, at times it may be so but in our
case the finding of fact by the Tribunal was
such which goes to show that the driver of
the scooter who died on the spot could not
have even visualzied that the truck whose
driver has not stepped into the witness box
would come on the wrong side and cause
the accident as deposed by eye witness in
both the matters though decided separately

9. The fact that the driver of the truck
who was the best person to have deposed
about the manner in which the accident
occurred has conveniently absented himself
and the charge sheet and the FIR as well as the
fact that the driver of the motor cycle died on
the spot shows the magnitude with which the
accident had occurred. The judgment in Bijoy
Kumar Dugar ( supra) and Yarramma and
others Versus G. Krishnamurthy and another,
202 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2014(4) T.A.C. 337 ( S.C.) will apply to the
facts of this case as in this case it is not the case
that the driver of the truck showed any indicator
or blew horn. In this case the observation in the
judgment of Yerramma ( supra) will apply as
the driver of the truck did not take any caution,
came on the wrong side dashed with the
motorcycle causing fatility of two persons. The
judgment in Bijoy Kumar Dugar ( supra) will
not apply, the reason being the movement of the
bus in the said matter was in a zig-zag manner
and the bus as per the judgment of Apex Court
could have been visualised by the driver of the
maruti car and driver of maruti car could have
avoided the accident. In our case, neither the
evidence shows the accident that the driver of
the truck had taken any caution to avoid the
accident. None has come forward to depose in
favour of the truck driver nor is it demonstrated
before this Court that the deceased was a
coauthor of accident.

10. In that view of the matter the decision
of the Tribunal holding the driver of the the
insured vehicle of the appellant to be negligent
herein cannot be disturbed, I am supported in
my view by the decision of the Apex Court
reported in Mohd. Siddiqui Versus National
Insurance Company Limited, 2020 ACJ SC
751 and therefore in absence of any evidence to
prove that the deceased victim contributed
either to the accident taken place or that the
death was attributable to the fault of the
deceased driver. He can not be held to be liable.

11. The decision of Supreme Court in
Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance
Company Limited and Others (2015) 9
SCC 273 which would also apply in the
facts of this case as qua one of the deceased
it was a case of composite negligence.

Breach of Policy

12. As far as the submission that there
was breach of policy condition the said is
not proved as the copy filed by the
respondent owner was verified and was
found to be meeting the standard for which
the truck driver was authorized to drive and
therefore the said ground fails and just
because the driving licence of Raise was
not found it cannot be said that he was
negligent or there was breach of policy
condition. Raies was not a trotfeasor. The
licence which is material for our purpose is
that of the driver of the truck. The driving
licence if is said to be fake the insurance
company should have prove the same. The
finding of fact of the Tribunal as far as non
breach of policy condition cannot be found
fault with.

13. The finding is very clear that the
driving licence of the driver of the truck whose
driving licence number 22183 E-9 / 0033 which
was issued and was valid from 29-12-2005 to
28-12-2008. The document was not proved to
be fake rather the said document was accepted
to be a valid and effective driving licence and
therefore the insurance company did not press
the said objection. Having proved in the case
between Sabana Versus New India Assurance
Company Limited in MACP No. 177 of 2007
the judgment which is impugned herein the said
ground cannot be accepted.

Compensation in MACP No.177 of
2007 giving rise to FAFO No. 734 of 2011
.

14. The submission of the counsel for
the insurance company is that the income
of the deceased should have been taken to
be Rs.15000/- per annum and the Tribunal
has considered Rs.36000/- per annum
which is bad and that the deduction of
1/3rd is also bad. The quantum requires to
be recalucated in view of the decision in
National Insurance Company Limited
Versus Pranay Sethi , 2017 ACJ 2700 and
9 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Noida Vs. Smt. Barisa & Ors.
203
also reliance is placed on the decision of
this High Court wherein it is held that as
per the principle of just compensation even
if no appeal is filed the Court under Order
41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure ,
1908, this Court will be obliged to grant
what is known as just compensation. The
awarded amount is not disturbed.

15. As far as the FAFO No.2473 of
2009 and FAFO No. 2538 of 2019 are
concerned the re-calculation would have be
remade. I am in agreement with the
submission of Sri Amit Manohar that the
deduction for a bachelor person, expenses
has to be 1⁄2 half and not 1/3rd as done by
the Tribunal.It is submitted by Sri Shukla
for the claimants that the claimants were
the parents of the deceased who was a
bachelor was 19 years of age the tribunal
granted multiplier as per the age of the
parents and not on the basis of age of
deceased and granted only Rs.4500/- under
the head of non pecuniary damages.

16. The deceased can be said to be
earning Rs.4000/- per month as he was a
skilled labourer and was having his own
repair garage for repairing motorcycle and
therefore the calculation has to be made
likewise.
Rs.4,000/-
+
Rs.1,600
=
Rs.5,600/-, the said amount has to be
deducted by 1⁄2 half as personal expenses of
the deceased which would be Rs.2,800/-
multiplied by 12 and then 18 as the
deceased. The judgment in the case of
Royal
Sundaram
Alliance
Insurance
Company Limited Versus Mandala Ydagari
Goud, (2019 5 SCC 554) holding that for
the death of a bachelor 50% should be
deducted for the personal expenses and that
multiplier should be based on the age of the
deceased and not on the age of the parents
and, therefore, the appeal preferred by
Insurance Company being FAFO No. 2473
of 2009 will have to be partly allowed. was
19 years of age + Rs.70000/- under other
heads. Hence, the appeal preferred by
Barrisa mother of the deceased as well as
the appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company will have to be accepted.The
judgment in the case of Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Company Limited
Versus Mandala Ydagari Goud, (2019 5
SCC 554) holding that for the death of a
bachelor 50% should be deducted for the
personal expenses and that multiplier
should be based on the age of the deceased
and not on the age of the parents and,
therefore, the appeal preferred by Insurance
Company being FAFO No. 2473 of 2009
will have to be partly allowed.

17. The judgment in the case of Royal
Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited Versus Mandala Ydagari Goud,
(2019 5 SCC 554) holding that for the
death of a bachelor 50% should be
deducted for the personal expenses and that
multiplier should be based on the age of the
deceased and not on the age of the parents
and, therefore, the appeal preferred by
Insurance Company being FAFO No. 2473
of 2009 will have to be partly allowed.

18. The claimants would now be
entitled to Rs.2800 x 12 x 18 + Rs.70000 =
Rs.6,74,800/- with interest as would be
decided herein below.

Interest

19. Recently the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Company
Versus Birendra decided on 13.1.2020
hence, the interest should be 9%. However,
the recalculation goes to show that the
insurance company will have to deposit
amount as First Appeal From Order
No.2588 of 2019 which was filed by the
204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claimants for enhancement in the year 2010
but the delay came to be condoned while
hearing the appeals on merits and therefore
the submission of Sri Amit Manohar that
the interest should be computed from 2019
cannot be accepted.

20. In the final analysis FAFO No.
2538 of 2009 and FAFO No.2473 of 2009
are
partly
allowed
whereas
F.A.F.O.
No.734 of 2011 preferred by the Insurance
Company is dismissed.

21. Record and proceedings be sent
back to the Tribunal.

22. The Insurance company shall
deposit the difference of the amount within
12 weeks from today.

23. The matters were ordered to be
listed for pronouncement on 23.3.2020 but
due to lockdown the pronouncement was
deferred. Pronounced belatedly today.
----------
(2020)09ILR A204
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2020

BEFORE

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

First Appeal From Order No. 2643 of 2003

National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Division Office, Gorakhpur ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Usha Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Anand Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pavan Kumar, Sri Om Prakash Yadav
A. Civil Law -Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 158 and 166(4) - Claim - Power of
tribunal - Argument of late reporting of accident
and doubt on Involvement of vehicle in accident
- Section 158 and 166(4) provide that
particulars of vehicles involved in the accident
have to be collected by investigating agency and
forwarded
to
the
Tribunal
as
accident
information report in Form 54 which shall be
treated as claim application - Motor Vehicles Act
empowers the Tribunal to award compensation
to the claimant even in absence of formal claim
application - Moreover, no objections was
raised before the tribunal that the vehicle was
not involved in the said accident - Argument
found not liable to be accepted. (Para 10 and
11)

Appeal dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-
1. Joshi Rajendrakumar Popatlal Vs Thakor
Ramnaji Hamirji & ors., 2020 ACJ 365
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Sri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned
counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri
Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the
claimants are present. None appears for the
owner.

2. By way of this appeal the Insurance
Company has challenges the award and
decree dated 29.07.2003 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special
Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.3, Deoria, in
MACP No.102 of 2001.

3. The brief facts are that on
02.11.2000 at about 6.00 P.M. deceased
Ramnath Chauhan was returning from
Shardiha Inter College to his home and as
soon as he reached near ITI School,
Motorcycle No. U.P.-52C-5319 dashed
with him. He fell on the road and during his
treatment he passed away in the Gorakhpur