# United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Shanti Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 204
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-14
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 4377 of 2018
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-co-ltd-v-shanti-devi-ors-52641
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava
Sinha, Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending Roadways Bus
and in fastening liability on the insurer,
particularly in view of the insurer's objections
alleging contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased motorcyclist, and absence of a
valid route permit for the bus at the time of the
accident, thereby challenging both the finding
on negligence and the insurer's liability to
indemnify the award.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
case arises out of a fatal road accident
that occurred on 08.03.2012 at about 9:45
a.m., when the deceased, Dr. Masi Lal,
aged about 46 years and employed as
Deputy C.M.O., Mirzapur, was driving
Motorcycle
near
Govindpur
Crossing,
Allahabad,
and
was
hit
head-on
by
Roadways Bus, which was allegedly being
driven in a rash and negligent manner,
resulting in his instantaneous death; an
FIR was lodged promptly, investigation
culminated in a charge sheet against the
bus driver, and the claimants i.e. his wife
and children filed a claim u/s 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act asserting an annual income
based on Form-16 - The Tribunal, relying
on evidence of an eyewitness, PW-2 Raju,
the
post-mortem
report,
technical
inspection report, and the absence of any
rebuttal evidence from the owner, driver,
or insurer, held the bus driver solely
negligent, assessed income at ₹7,85,571/-
after tax deduction, applied 30% future
10 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi & Ors.
205
prospects and multiplier 13, and awarded
₹81,35,000/- with 7% interest, fastening
liability upon the insurer.

Held: In view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court and Division Benches of Allahabad High
Court, it is apparent that if the route was
notified then the duration of the permit obtained
by the Corporation for plying the vehicle is
coterminous with the life of the scheme and
even if, the number of the bus is not mentioned
in the permit, it is not fatal - In the instant case,
the tribunal has recorded a categorical finding
that the bus was plying on the Allahabad -
Lucknow route and was having a valid permit -
It is not disputed by learned counsel for
appellant that the route was notified and as
such, the submission that the bus was being
plied without valid route permit, is liable to be
rejected - Accordingly, appeal has no merit and
liable to be dismissed. [Paras 18, 19, 21] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
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;
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; UPSRTC v. Regional Transport Authority &
others (1998) 7 SCC 436; UPSRTC v. Kulsum
and Others, ( 2011) 8 SCC 142; Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mamta Devi
& Others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8613;
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. UPSRTC &
Others 2015 (33) LCD 2814 - referred to
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Rash and negligent manner; Succumbed on the
spot; Grievous injuries; Professional doctor;
drawing salary; Assessed his annual income;
Deducting income tax; Granted future prospect;
Applied
multiplier;
Compensation
awarded;
Ordered to be paid by the insurer; Contributory
negligence; Sole negligence; Valid route permit;
Not liable to indemnify; Proved the salary
certificate; Eye witness; Technical inspection;
Ante-mortem brain injury; Contract with the
UPSRTC; Not fatal; Appeal has no merit; Liable
to be dismissed; Impugned judgment affirmed;
Remit back the statutory deposit; Interim order
vacated.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 4377 of 2018
From
the
Judg

## Text

204 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is an international commercial arbitration,
the same would not render the award to be
a 'foreign award' as defined under Section
44 of the Act. Section 2(1)(e)(ii) clearly
prescribes that in case of international
commercial arbitration it is the High Court
having jurisdiction to hear appeals from
decrees of Courts subordinate to that High
Court, would be the appropriate Court for
execution of the award in the State of U.P.;
Section 2(1)(e)(ii) does not use the phrase
'foreign
award'
for
conferring
the
jurisdiction on the commercial division of
the High Court as established under the
Commercial Courts Act and duly notified
in the State of U.P., thus, the second
argument also deserves to be rejected and is
accordingly rejected.

21.
In
view
of
the
foregoing
discussions,
I.A.
No.1
of
2025
is
rejected/dismissed. I.A. No.2 of 2025 also
stands disposed off accordingly.

Order on Execution Application:

22. Judgment debtor/respondent nos.1
& 2 are directed to comply with the
directions
issued
by
this
Court
on
11.07.2025 within a period of two weeks
from today.

23. List this execution application for
orders before the appropriate Court on
30.10.2025.

----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 204
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 4377 of 2018
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Shanti Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava
Sinha, Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the
accident occurred solely due to the rash and
negligent driving of the offending Roadways Bus
and in fastening liability on the insurer,
particularly in view of the insurer's objections
alleging contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased motorcyclist, and absence of a
valid route permit for the bus at the time of the
accident, thereby challenging both the finding
on negligence and the insurer's liability to
indemnify the award.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
case arises out of a fatal road accident
that occurred on 08.03.2012 at about 9:45
a.m., when the deceased, Dr. Masi Lal,
aged about 46 years and employed as
Deputy C.M.O., Mirzapur, was driving
Motorcycle
near
Govindpur
Crossing,
Allahabad,
and
was
hit
head-on
by
Roadways Bus, which was allegedly being
driven in a rash and negligent manner,
resulting in his instantaneous death; an
FIR was lodged promptly, investigation
culminated in a charge sheet against the
bus driver, and the claimants i.e. his wife
and children filed a claim u/s 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act asserting an annual income
based on Form-16 - The Tribunal, relying
on evidence of an eyewitness, PW-2 Raju,
the
post-mortem
report,
technical
inspection report, and the absence of any
rebuttal evidence from the owner, driver,
or insurer, held the bus driver solely
negligent, assessed income at ₹7,85,571/-
after tax deduction, applied 30% future
10 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi & Ors.
205
prospects and multiplier 13, and awarded
₹81,35,000/- with 7% interest, fastening
liability upon the insurer.

Held: In view of the law laid down by the Apex
Court and Division Benches of Allahabad High
Court, it is apparent that if the route was
notified then the duration of the permit obtained
by the Corporation for plying the vehicle is
coterminous with the life of the scheme and
even if, the number of the bus is not mentioned
in the permit, it is not fatal - In the instant case,
the tribunal has recorded a categorical finding
that the bus was plying on the Allahabad -
Lucknow route and was having a valid permit -
It is not disputed by learned counsel for
appellant that the route was notified and as
such, the submission that the bus was being
plied without valid route permit, is liable to be
rejected - Accordingly, appeal has no merit and
liable to be dismissed. [Paras 18, 19, 21] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
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;
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; UPSRTC v. Regional Transport Authority &
others (1998) 7 SCC 436; UPSRTC v. Kulsum
and Others, ( 2011) 8 SCC 142; Bajaj Allianz
General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Mamta Devi
& Others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8613;
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. UPSRTC &
Others 2015 (33) LCD 2814 - referred to
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

List of Keywords
Rash and negligent manner; Succumbed on the
spot; Grievous injuries; Professional doctor;
drawing salary; Assessed his annual income;
Deducting income tax; Granted future prospect;
Applied
multiplier;
Compensation
awarded;
Ordered to be paid by the insurer; Contributory
negligence; Sole negligence; Valid route permit;
Not liable to indemnify; Proved the salary
certificate; Eye witness; Technical inspection;
Ante-mortem brain injury; Contract with the
UPSRTC; Not fatal; Appeal has no merit; Liable
to be dismissed; Impugned judgment affirmed;
Remit back the statutory deposit; Interim order
vacated.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 4377 of 2018
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
24.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1,
Allahabad, in MACP No.217 of 2012

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Nagendra Kumar Srivastava
Advs. for the Respondents:
Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava Sinha,
Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi

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

Order on Cross Objection

Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that he does not want to press the
cross objection.

The cross objection is dismissed
as not pressed.

Order on Appeal

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the insurer of Roadways
Bus No. UP-32-CZ-4600 against the
impugned judgment and award dated
24.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Court no.1, Allahabad, in MACP No.217 of
2012,
Smt.
Shanti
Devi
&
Others
vs.UPSRTC
&
Others,
whereby
compensation of Rs.81,35,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded
to the claimants(wife and children) for the
death of claimant?s husband/father Dr.
206 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Masi Lal due to injuries suffered by him in
an accident which occurred on 08.03.2012
at about 9:45 AM.

2. Factual matrix is that the deceased
Dr. Masi Lal was driving a motorcycle No.
UP-63-H-1095 on 08.03.2012 then at 09.45
AM near Govindpur crossing, Mohalla
Teliyarganj within the jurisdiction of police
station Shivkuti, Allahabad the above
Motorcycle was hit by a roadways bus No.
UP-32-CZ-4600 which was being driven in
rash and negligent manner by its driver.
The offending bus collided head-on with
the motorcycle, resulting in grievous
injuries to Dr. Masi Lal, who succumbed
on the spot. The deceased was aged about
46 years on the date of the accident and
was professional doctor and was employed
as Deputy C.M.O. in the office of the
C.M.O., Mirzapur and was drawing salary
of
Rs.74,074/-
per
month.
The
claimants(wife
and
children)
claimed
compensation of Rs.1,05,00,000/- but the
tribunal relying upon the Form-16 of the
Income Tax Act of the deceased, assessed
his annual income to be Rs.7,85,571/- and
after deducting an amount of Rs.69,719/-
towards the income tax, granted future
prospect of 30%, applied multiplier of 13,
awarded compensation of Rs.81,35,000/-
alongwith 7% interest per annum to the
claimants(wife
and
children)
of
the
deceased, which was ordered to be paid by
the insurer of the offending Roadways Bus
No. UP-32-CZ-4600.

3. Learned counsel for the appellantinsurance company submitted that from the
site plan and the evidence of eye witness
Raju PW-2, it is evident that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased, who was driving motorcycle No.
UP-63-H-1095 on the date of the accident,
but the tribunal has erred in concluding that
the accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the driver of the offending
Roadways Bus No. UP-32-CZ-4600. It was
also submitted that the offending bus did
not possess the relevant route permit at the
time of the accident, as such, the appellant
is not liable to indemnify the claimants.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that at the
time of the accident, the offending bus was
being driven on the right side of the road,
which itself shows that the driver of the bus
was negligent in driving the bus. He further
submitted that no evidence was adduced by
the owner, driver and insurer of the bus
regarding contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased, as such, it cannot be
presumed that there was any negligence on
the part of the deceased. He further
submitted that after investigation, a charge
sheet has been submitted against the driver
of the offending bus which itself proves
that the accident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the driver of the offending
bus. He further submitted that the tribunal
has recorded a categorical finding that the
offending bus was being plied according to
the terms and conditions of the policy,
which was having a valid route permit on
the date of the alleged accident as such, the
above finding of the tribunal warrants no
interference by this appellate Court. With
these submissions, it was prayed that the
appeal is meritless and is liable to be
dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

6. 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:-
10 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi & Ors.
207

"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(SCCp.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
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] ."
208 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 chargesheet. The contention is that the vehicle
insured with 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)

7. 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)

8. The Apex Court in the case of Jiju
Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma 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
10 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi & Ors.
209
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 claimants
have examined three witnesses before the
tribunal PW-1 Shanti Devi, PW-2 Raju and
PW-3 Mohd. Shakeel Ahmad. PW-1 is not
an eye witness of the accident. PW-3 has
proved the salary certificate of the deceased
and PW-2 is the alleged eye witness of the
accident.

11. PW-2, Raju has deposed before the
tribunal that on the date of the accident, he
was present at the spot. Dr. Masi Lal was
driving the motorcycle No.UP-63-H-1095
on the Govindpur crossing, who was going
towards Teliyarganj, Sanjeev Singh was
pillion rider, then Bus No. UP-32-CZ-4600
which was being driven in rash and
negligent manner came from the wrong
side and collided with the motorcycle,
resulting in injuries to Dr. Masi Lal, who
died instantaneously on the spot. He further
deposed that after the accident, the
offending bus stopped and subsequently,
the driver of the offending bus fled. He
further deposed that the deceased was
driving the motorcycle in a normal speed,
on the left side of the road and the accident
was seen by other persons also. In cross
examination, he also deposed that he saw
the accident and due to festival, there was
less crowd on the Govindpur crossing. He
denied the suggestion that he did not
witness the accident. It is evident that after
the accident, an FIR was registered on
08.03.2012 at 11:30 hours by Shekhar
Azad(nephew of deceased) in which after
investigation, a charge sheet has been
submitted against the offending bus driver
Zuber Khan under Sections 279, 338, 427,
304-A IPC.
210 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. It is further apparent that in the
technical inspection of the motorcycle No.
UP-63-H-1095, it was found severely
damaged.
Further,
according
to
the
postmortem report of the deceased, a 4x4
c.m. bone deep laceration was found in the
occipital region of his head. The cause of
death was opined to be ante-mortem brain
injury. It is also apparent that neither the
owner, driver of the offending bus nor the
insurer have appeared in the witness box to
contradict the claim. No contra evidence
was led by the opposite parties before the
tribunal, as such, there was no evidence to
presume that the accident occurred due to
the contributory negligence of the deceased
who was driving motorcycle No. UP-63-H1095 at the time of the accident.

13. The tribunal has also recorded a
categorical finding that the offending bus
was under contract with the UPSRTC and
was having a valid route permit from
Allahabad to Lucknow.

14. The Apex Court in the case of
UPSRTC
Vs.
Regional
Transport
Authority & others (1998) 7 SCC 436, has
held that combined reading of Section 68B, 68-F(1-E) and Rule 10 of the UP State
Road Transport Services (Development)
Rules, 1974 shows that in so far as the
notified routes are concerned, for which the
Corporation has an exclusive right to ply
their vehicles under the scheme framed
under the Act, the duration of permit
obtained by the Corporation for plying
those vehicles is coterminous with the life
of the scheme. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 says
that the permit issued as aforesaid shall
remain valid till the scheme remains in
force.

15. The Apex Court in the case of
UPSRTC vs. Kulsum and Others, (2011) 8
SCC 142 has held that where the vehicle
was given on hire by the owner of the
vehicle together with its existing and
running insurance policy, in view of the
terms and conditions of the agreement, the
Insurance Company cannot escape its
liability to pay compensation. Though, for
all practical purposes, for the relevant
period, the hirer becomes the owner of the
vehicle for the specific period. But in case
the vehicle is insured at the instance of
original owner, it will be deemed that the
vehicle is transferred along with the
Insurance Policy in existence to the hirer
and thus, the Insurance Company would
not be escaped from its liability to pay the
amount of compensation. The liability to
pay compensation is based on statutory
provision and the liability of the owner to
have compulsory insurance is only in
regard to the third party and not to the
property.

16. Further, a Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General
Isnurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mamta Devi
& Others, 2015 SCC OnLine All 8613 has
held that once the vehicle is insured, the
owner as well as any person can use the
vehicle with the consent of the owner.
Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act does
not provide that any person who uses the
vehicle independently, a separate insurance
policy should be taken. It was further held
that route on which vehicle was being plied
was a notified route and operation was not
illegal for want of any valid permit, as
such, the liability to pay compensation was
fastened on the insurance company. It is
further held that the Corporation had
produced the documentary evidence which
established
that
Gorakhpur-MagharKhalilabad-Basti was a notified route and
the scheme no. (2) was in force and thus it
cannot be said that the operation was illegal
for want of any valid permit.
10 All. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanti Devi & Ors.
211

17. A Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Oriental Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. UPSRTC & Others 2015 (33)
LCD 2814 has held as under:-

"10. The procedure provided
under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1974 is very
clear and explicit, which says that as and
when an application under Sub-Rule (1) is
made, the State Transport Authorities or
Regional Transport Authorities, as the case
may be, may issue a permit to the State
Transport Undertaking for the notified
route or notified area accordingly.

11. Counsel for UPSRTC has laid
emphasis on the words ''notified route or
notified area' are the only requirement as
contemplated under the Act and to
substantiate his case, he has further drawn
the attention of the Court towards Form IV
Part A of the permit. Form IV part A goes
to indicate that notified route or notified
area is the only requirement and nothing
more than that. And the requirement is
also to the same effect that the State
Transport
Authorities
or
Regional
Transport Authorities are required to
issue permit to the State Transport
Undertaking indicating notified route or
notified area.

12. Once the requirement for
issuance of permit for notified route or
notified
area
has
been
made,
the
argument of learned counsel for the
appellant that bus number must be
mentioned on the permit cannot be
accepted and neither termed to be
statutory requirement as contemplated
under the Act or Rule. The further
argument of learned counsel for the
appellant is that the said permit has not
been proved. It is to be noted that photostat
copy of the permit was filed by UPSRTC.
The UPSRTC happens to be a public body.
The custodian of the original record is the
said public body and, therefore, attested
photostat copy of the same has been filed
by UPSRTC before the Tribunal, therefore,
it cannot be said that it is not a correct
document
and
the same
cannot be
considered "

 (emphasis supplied)

18. In view of the above law laid down
by the Apex Court and the Division
Benches of this Court, it is apparent that if
the route was notified then the duration of
the permit obtained by the Corporation for
plying the vehicle is coterminous with the
life of the scheme and even if, the number
of the bus is not mentioned in the permit, it
is not fatal.

19. In the instant case, the tribunal has
recorded a categorical finding that the bus
was plying on the Allahabad-Lucknow
route and was having a valid permit. It is
not disputed by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the route was notified and as
such, the submission that the bus was being
plied without valid route permit, is liable to
be rejected.

20. No other point was pressed by the
learned counsel for the appellant.

21. Accordingly, this appeal has got
no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

22. The appeal is dismissed.

23. The impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal dated 24.08.2018 is
affirmed.

24. Office is directed to remit back the
statutory deposit made by the Insurance
212 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith, if not already remitted.

25. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.

26. The tribunal is directed to disburse
the compensation to the claimants as per its
judgment without any delay, if not already
disbursed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 212
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2220 of 2025

National Insurance Company Limited
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt Sudha Kumari & Ors. ... Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Shrey Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal committed any legal error in
awarding compensation of ₹5,70,000/- with
interest u/s 163A of Motor Vehicles Act,
particularly in light of the insurer's objections
that accident itself was doubtful due to the
absence of FIR and delayed G.D. entry, and the
Tribunal exceeded the statutory limit of ₹5 lakhs
by granting an additional ₹70,000/- under
conventional heads, despite the structured
formula prescribed u/s 163A and the amended
Second Schedule.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - ss. 163A, 164,
173 - Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
1998 - R. 220-A - The case concerns a
motor
accident
that
occurred
on
12.11.2018 near village Killi - Ritauli,
District Etawah, where the deceased,
Nand Kishore, aged about 34 years and
employed as a vegetable seller earning Rs.
3,300 per month, was standing by the
roadside awaiting transportation when
the offending Loader driven out of control
while attempting to avoid a herd of cows,
struck him and overturned, causing fatal
injuries leading to his death during
treatment at PGI Safai - Although no FIR
was lodged and only a delayed G.D. entry
dated 29.11.2018 was recorded - The
claimants
i.e.
his
widow
and
minor
children filed a petition u/s 163A of Motor
Vehicles Act seeking compensation, which
the Tribunal allowed by awarding Rs.
5,70,000 with 7% interest, fastening
liability upon the insurer, prompting the
insurer to file the present appeal.

Held: In the instant case, the tribunal has only
awarded Rs.70,000/- to the claimants towards
non pecuniary damages, which is less than the
amount of Rs. 90,000/- to which they are
entitled, which cannot be reduced any further
and cannot be said to be erroneous - It is
apparent that the effect of Rule 220-A of the
Rules
of
1998,
the
Constitutional
Bench
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Pranay Sethi (infra) and Magma General
Insurance
Co.Ltd.
(infra)
has
not
been
considered - The judgment also does not deal
with
grant
of
compensation
under
non
pecuniary heads in claim petition filed u/s 163A
of 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The
tribunal has not erred in awarding total
compensation
of
Rs.5,70,000/-
alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum to the claimants,
warranting interference from this Court in
exercise
of
it's
appellate
jurisdiction
-
Accordingly, appeal is meritless and dismissed -
The impugned judgment and award of tribunal
dated 16.06.2025 is affirmed. [Paras 19, 21,
22, 23] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC
693; Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. (2018) 18
SCC 130; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680; United India