# United India Insurance Com. Ltd v. Ishani & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 1157
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-09
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2342 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-com-ltd-v-ishani-anr-54731
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Ishani & Anr.
1157
small area of four biswa whereas the
acquired land of Roop Narain was 6 bigha
2 biswa, which was large in comparison,
and assuming that it was degraded, barren,
infertile and having pits from which soil
was extracted by the brick kiln, as such, for
developing it and making suitable for the
purposes of acquisition, a maximum
deduction of 50% can be made from the
value reflected in the exemplar dated
20.04.1988. After making the above
deduction of 50%, the true market value of
the acquired land comes to Rs.17,062.50
per biswa, which the appellants are entitled
to get, besides other statutory benefits
admissible under the Land Acquisition
Act,1894.

39.
Insofar
as
the
amount
of
compensation awarded for well, house and
four fruit bearing trees situated on the
acquired land of the land owner is
concerned, since no contrary evidence was
adduced by the land owner before the
Reference Court, as such, the amount of
compensation awarded by the Collector
under above heads require no interference
from this Court in exercise of it's appellate
jurisdiction.

40. In view of this, the Reference
Court has certainly erred in not enhancing
the compensation for the acquired land,
upholding the Collector's award and
dismissing the reference by impugned
award and decree dated 08.08.2007.
Consequently, this appeal has got merits
and is liable to be allowed.

41. Accordingly, this appeal is
hereby allowed. The impugned award and
decree dated 08.08.2007 is set aside.

42. The appellants are entitled to get
enhanced compensation @ Rs.17,062.50
per biswa for their acquired land. They are
also
entitled
to
get
30%
solatium,
additional compensation @ 12% per annum
and enhanced interest u/s 28 of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894.

43. The instant appeal was filed on
12.11.2007 which was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 13.07.2009, which was
restored on 11.02.2011. Again the appeal
was dismissed for deficiency of court fees
and non-prosecution on 06.04.2011. The
deficiency of court fees was made good on
04.05.2016 and the appeal was restored on
27.07.2016, as such, the appellants are not
entitled to get interest on the enhanced
amount of compensation awarded by this
Court for the period 12.11.2007 till
27.07.2016.

44. Costs easy. Office is directed to
prepare the decree accordingly.

45. Office is directed to send back the
original trial court record, forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1157
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2342 of 2025

United India Insurance Com. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Ishani & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arun Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
1. Whether the accident occurred due to the
sole negligence of the tractor driver or
contributory negligence of the motorcycle
driver.
2. Whether there was a breach of insurance
policy conditions (agricultural vs. commercial
use).
3. Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the
claimant.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 173: - Insurer's Appeal - under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act - against the
Tribunal's award of Rs. 66,282 with 7% interest
to minor claimant, who was injured in accident,
where the insured tractor, driven rashly, hit a
motorcycle carrying her family, causing injuries
to the children and father and the death of her
mother - FIR - charge sheet filed against the
tractor driver - the Tribunal held the tractor
driver solely negligent - while the insurer argued
contributory negligence due to four persons
riding the motorcycle and breach of policy
conditions by alleged commercial use of the
tractor - The Court held that the accident was
caused solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of the tractor, as proved by PW-1 and
supported by the charge sheet against the
driver - the plea of breach of policy conditions
was rejected since the tractor's trolley was
empty and the vehicle was comprehensively
insured, and the argument of motorcycle
overloading was also dismissed for lack of
causal connection - hence, no perversity in the
Tribunal's conclusions, the Court affirmed the
award of compensation and dismissed the
insurer's appeal at the admission stage -
direction issued for return of the statutory
deposit.
(Para - 12, 13, 14, 16)
Appeal Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Mohammed Siddique & Another vs. National
Insurance Company Limited & Others (2020) 3
SCC 57,
Anjana Narayan Kamle vs. Branch Manager,
Reliance Insurance Company Limited, 2023 ACJ
346,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Rajani Sahoo and Others (2025) 2
SCC 599,
Ranjeet and another vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and
another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497.

LIST OF ACTS
Land Acquisition Act, 1894

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) - Rash
and negligent driving - Tractor vs. motorcycle
collision - Insurance liability - Breach of policy
conditions
-
Contributory
negligence
-
Compensation award - Appeal dismissal.

CASE ARISING FROM
Judgment and award dated 27.06.2025 by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Saharanpur.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Ajeet Kumar, Hari
Shanker Tripathi, M P Srivastava,
Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Sushil Kumar
Pandey & SC.

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

1. The instant appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the insurer of vehicle
Mahindra Tractor No. UP-11-BJ-5905
against the impugned judgment and award
dated 27.06.2025 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Saharanpur,
whereby compensation of Rs.66,282/-
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has
been awarded in favour of minor claimant
(Ishani) for the injuries suffered by her in
an accident which occurred on 27.02.2021.

2. Factual matrix is that the injured
was travelling with her minor brother
Rocky aged about 7 years and parents on a
motorcycle
No.
UP-11-BV-0260
on
27.02.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., a Mahindra
Tractor No. UP-11-BJ-5905, which was
being driven in a rash and negligent
manner, came from behind and hit the
above motorcycle, resulting in injuries to
the minor children, father and death of the
10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Ishani & Anr.
1159
claimants mother. In this accident, the
claimants left leg was fractured and she
sustained injuries on other parts of her
body. Besides this, the claimants minor
brother was seriously injured and her
mother Smt. Shabnam was grievously
injured, who succumbed to her injuries and
died on 13.03.2021.

3. An F.I.R. was registered on
03.03.2021 at 19:33 hours being Case
Crime No.81 of 2021 at PS-Sarsawa,
District Saharanpur, against the driver Anil
Saini of the above tractor No. UP-11-BJ5905 in which after investigation, a charge
sheet has been submitted against the above
driver.

4. The owner of the tractor
appeared before the Tribunal and denied
the accident but also pleaded that the
accident took place due to the sole
negligence of the above motorcycle driver.
The Insurance Company also submitted its
written statement, in which it denied the
accident.
Before
the
Tribunal,
the
claimants father Sanjay Kumar examined
himself as PW-1 and the owner-cum-driver
of the offending tractor Anil Kumar
examined himself as DW-1. No oral and
documentary evidence was adduced by the
Insurance Company before the Tribunal.
5. In these circumstances, the
Tribunal concluded that the accident
occurred due to the sole negligence of the
above tractor driver and as such, for the
injuries sustained in the accident, the
claimant was awarded compensation of
Rs.66,282/- along with interest @7% per
annum,
which
was
ordered
to
be
indemnified by the insurer of the above
tractor.

6.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant, who is the insurer of the above
offending tractor, submitted that on the date
of the alleged accident, the claimant was
travelling along with her minor brother and
parents on the motorcycle. Learned counsel
submitted that four persons were travelling
on the motorcycle, the accident occurred
because the motorcycle driver failed to
balance the motorcycle resulting in the
collision. Learned counsel also submitted
that the tractor was insured for agricultural
purposes but was used for commercial
purposes, as such, there was breach of
policy conditions and in such situation, the
Insurance Company was not liable to
indemnify the claimant.

7. I have heard the learned counsel
for the appellant and perused the record.

8. The Apex Court in the case of
Mohammed Siddique & Another vs.
National Insurance Company Limited &
Others (2020) 3 SCC 57 held as under:-

 "12. But the above reason, in our
view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased
was riding on a motorcycle along with the
driver and another, may not, by itself,
without anything more, make him guilty of
contributory negligence. At the most, it
would make him guilty of being a party to
the violation of the law. Section 128 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a
restriction on the driver of a two-wheeled
motorcycle, not to carry more than one
person on the motorcycle. Section 194-C,
inserted by Amendment Act 32 of 2019,
prescribes a penalty for violation of safety
measures for motorcycle drivers and pillion
riders. Therefore, the fact that a person
was a pillion rider on a motorcycle along
with the driver and one more person on the
pillion, may be a violation of the law. But
such violation by itself, without anything
more, cannot lead to a finding of
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contributory negligence, unless it is
established that his very act of riding
along with two others, contributed either
to the accident or to the impact of the
accident upon the victim. There must
either be a casual connection between the
violation and the accident or a casual
connection between the violation and the
impact of the accident upon the victim. It
may so happen at times, that the accident
could have been averted or the injuries
sustained could have been of a lesser
degree, if there had been no violation of the
law by the victim. What could otherwise
have resulted in a simple injury, might have
resulted in a grievous injury or even death
due to the violation of the law by the victim.
It is in such cases, where, but for the
violation of the law, either the accident
could have been averted or the impact
could have been minimised, that the
principle of contributory negligence could
be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer
that the accident itself occurred as a result
of three persons riding on a motorcycle. It
is not even the case of the insurer that the
accident would have been averted, if three
persons were not riding on the motorcycle.
The fact that the motorcycle was hit by the
car from behind, is admitted. Interestingly,
the finding recorded by the Tribunal that
the deceased was wearing a helmet and
that the deceased was knocked down after
the car hit the motorcycle from behind, are
all not assailed. Therefore, the finding of
the High Court that 2 persons on the pillion
of the motorcycle, could have added to the
imbalance, is nothing but presumptuous
and is not based either upon pleading or
upon the evidence on record. Nothing was
extracted from PW 3 to the effect that 2
persons on the pillion added to the
imbalance.
 13. Therefore, in the absence of
any evidence to show that the wrongful act
on the part of the deceased victim
contributed either to the accident or to the
nature of the injuries sustained, the victim
could not have been held guilty of
contributory
negligence.
Hence,
the
reduction of 10% towards contributory
negligence, is clearly unjustified and the
same has to be set aside."

(emphasis supplied)

 9. The Apex Court in the case of
Anjana Narayan Kamle vs. Branch
Manager, Reliance Insurance Company
Limited, 2023 ACJ 346 has held that
contributory
negligence
cannot
be
presumed merely on account of triple
riding on a motor cycle or failure to
wear a helmet; there must be evidence of
a casual connection between the violation
and the accident or itss impact.

(emphasis supplied)

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

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

 27.
Another
reason
which
weighed with the High Court to interfere in
the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 and
3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal
about the factum of negligence of the driver
10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Ishani & Anr.
1161
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] .

 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.
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 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)

11. 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)

12. It is true that on the date of the
alleged accident, the claimant along with
her minor brother and parents was
travelling on the motorcycle, which was
being driven by her father Sanjay Kumar
(PW-1), who has appeared before the
Tribunal and has proved that the accident
occurred due to the sole negligence of the
tractor driver. PW-1 has deposed that the
tractor was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner, which came from behind
and hit the above motorcycle resulting in
injuries to the claimant(Ishani), her minor
brother as well as to her mother, who
subsequently succumbed to her injuries and
died on 13.03.2021 and after investigation,
a charge sheet has been submitted against
the owner-cum-driver of the offending
tractor.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that on the date of the
alleged accident, the tractor was being
driven in breach of the policy conditions. It
is evident that the Tribunal has dealt with
this issue elaborately and recorded a
finding that at the time of the accident, the
trolley of the tractor was empty and as
such, it cannot be presumed that it was
being used for transporting goods for
freight. Learned counsel for the appellant
has also admitted during the course of
arguments that at the time of the accident
the trolley was empty. In view of this, no
case of breach of policy conditions is made
out. It is apparent that the tractor was
comprehensively insured under package
policy on the date of the accident by the
appellant insurance company.

14. It is apparent that only on the
basis that four persons (two minor children
and two major) were travelling on the
motorcycle on the date of the accident, it
cannot be presumed that the accident took
place due to the imbalance of the
motorcycle. There is no evidence on record
to prove that if four persons were not
seated on the motorcycle then the accident
would not have occurred. The insurance
company failed to prove the casual
connection between the persons travelling
on the motorcycle and the cause of
accident.

15. No other plea was raised by the
learned counsel.
10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Ishani & Anr.
1163
16. There is no perversity in the
above findings recorded by the Tribunal, as
such, the Tribunal has not erred in
concluding that the accident occurred due
to the sole negligence of the above
tractors driver, which was being driven in
a rash and negligent manner and further,
there was no breach of the policy
conditions.

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

18. The appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage.

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

20. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
--------