# United India Insurance Com. Ltd v. Rocky & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 923
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-13
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2387 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/united-india-insurance-com-ltd-v-rocky-ors-52600
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in holding that accident
occurred solely due to rash and negligent
driving of tractor driver, and consequently, in
fastening liability on insurer, particularly in view
of appellant's contentions regarding contributory
negligence arising from four persons travelling
on the motorcycle, and alleged breach of policy
conditions on account of tractor being used for
non-agricultural purposes.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
case arises from a motor accident dated
27.02.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., wherein
the minor claimant, Rocky, aged about
seven years, was travelling along with his
minor sister and parents on a motorcycle
when a Mahindra Tractor, allegedly driven
in a rash and negligent manner, came
from
behind
and
collided
with
the
motorcycle, resulting in fracture of the
claimant's left leg, injuries to other family
members, and the grievous injury and
subsequent death (on 13.03.2021) of the
claimant's mother - FIR was lodged,
investigation culminated in a charge sheet
against the tractor driver, and before the
Tribunal the father of the claimant (PW-1)
deposed in support of the accident, while
the
owner-cum-driver
(DW-1)
denied
negligence, yet no evidence was led by the
insurer,
and
the
Tribunal,
upon
appreciation of materials on record, held
the tractor driver solely negligent and
awarded compensation of Rs. 66,036/-
with interest against the insurer.

Held: It stands established that on the date of
the incident, the claimant was travelling on a
motorcycle along with his minor sister and
parents, the vehicle being driven by his father
Sanjay Kumar (PW-1). PW-1 deposed that the
accident occurred solely due to the negligent
and
rash
driving
of
the
tractor,
which
approached from behind and collided with the
motorcycle, causing injuries to the claimant, his
minor sister, and his mother, who later
succumbed to her injuries on 13.03.2021 -
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investigation culminated in submission of a
charge-sheet against the owner-cum-driver of
the offending tractor - Learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the tractor was being
driven in breach of policy conditions on the date
of the accident - Tribunal, however, upon
detailed consideration, found that the tractor's
trolley was empty and therefore could not be
presumed to be engaged in carriage of goods
for hire - Counsel for the appellant also
conceded during arguments that the trolley was
empty - Consequently, no breach of policy
conditions is made out - It further stands
admitted that the tractor was duly covered
under a comprehensive package policy issued
by the appellant insurer on the date of the
accident - The mere fact that four persons - two
minors and two adults - were riding the
motorcycle cannot, by itself, give rise to a
presumption that the accident occurred due to
loss of balance - No evidence has been adduced
to show that the accident would have been
averted had fewer persons been seated -
Insurer has thus failed to establish any causal
nexus between the number of riders and the
cause of the accident - The Tribunal's findings
suffer from no perversity - It rightly concluded
that accident occurred solely due rash and
negligent driving of tractor and that no breach
of
policy
conditions
was
established
-
Accordingly, appeal lacks merit and dismissed at
the admission stage. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 16 ] (E13)

Case Law Cited
Mohammed Siddique & Another v. National
Insurance Company Limited & Others (2020) 3
SCC 57; Anjana Narayan Kamle v. Branch
Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Limited,
2023 ACJ 346; 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 - referred to.

List of Acts
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
List of Keywords
Compensation; Rash and negligent manner;
Succumbed to her injuries; Travell

## Text

10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Rocky & Ors.
923
behind with a stationary vehicle,
resulting in grievous injuries to its owner,
Prem Narayan, who succumbed to his
injuries during treatment on 07.07.2016.
After his death, his legal heirs filed the
present claim petition.

7. In view of the above facts, the
Tribunal has not erred in allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased
Prem Narayan according to terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts,
there is no merit in this appeal and is liable
to be dismissed at the admission stage.

9. The appeal is hereby dismissed
at the admission stage.

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

11. Office is directed to remit back
the statutory deposit made by the Insurance
Company to the Tribunal concerned,
forthwith.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 923
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2387 of 2025

United India Insurance Com. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Rocky & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Arun Kumar Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in holding that accident
occurred solely due to rash and negligent
driving of tractor driver, and consequently, in
fastening liability on insurer, particularly in view
of appellant's contentions regarding contributory
negligence arising from four persons travelling
on the motorcycle, and alleged breach of policy
conditions on account of tractor being used for
non-agricultural purposes.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 173 - The
case arises from a motor accident dated
27.02.2021 at about 3:00 p.m., wherein
the minor claimant, Rocky, aged about
seven years, was travelling along with his
minor sister and parents on a motorcycle
when a Mahindra Tractor, allegedly driven
in a rash and negligent manner, came
from
behind
and
collided
with
the
motorcycle, resulting in fracture of the
claimant's left leg, injuries to other family
members, and the grievous injury and
subsequent death (on 13.03.2021) of the
claimant's mother - FIR was lodged,
investigation culminated in a charge sheet
against the tractor driver, and before the
Tribunal the father of the claimant (PW-1)
deposed in support of the accident, while
the
owner-cum-driver
(DW-1)
denied
negligence, yet no evidence was led by the
insurer,
and
the
Tribunal,
upon
appreciation of materials on record, held
the tractor driver solely negligent and
awarded compensation of Rs. 66,036/-
with interest against the insurer.

Held: It stands established that on the date of
the incident, the claimant was travelling on a
motorcycle along with his minor sister and
parents, the vehicle being driven by his father
Sanjay Kumar (PW-1). PW-1 deposed that the
accident occurred solely due to the negligent
and
rash
driving
of
the
tractor,
which
approached from behind and collided with the
motorcycle, causing injuries to the claimant, his
minor sister, and his mother, who later
succumbed to her injuries on 13.03.2021 -
924 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Investigation culminated in submission of a
charge-sheet against the owner-cum-driver of
the offending tractor - Learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the tractor was being
driven in breach of policy conditions on the date
of the accident - Tribunal, however, upon
detailed consideration, found that the tractor's
trolley was empty and therefore could not be
presumed to be engaged in carriage of goods
for hire - Counsel for the appellant also
conceded during arguments that the trolley was
empty - Consequently, no breach of policy
conditions is made out - It further stands
admitted that the tractor was duly covered
under a comprehensive package policy issued
by the appellant insurer on the date of the
accident - The mere fact that four persons - two
minors and two adults - were riding the
motorcycle cannot, by itself, give rise to a
presumption that the accident occurred due to
loss of balance - No evidence has been adduced
to show that the accident would have been
averted had fewer persons been seated -
Insurer has thus failed to establish any causal
nexus between the number of riders and the
cause of the accident - The Tribunal's findings
suffer from no perversity - It rightly concluded
that accident occurred solely due rash and
negligent driving of tractor and that no breach
of
policy
conditions
was
established
-
Accordingly, appeal lacks merit and dismissed at
the admission stage. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 16 ] (E13)

Case Law Cited
Mohammed Siddique & Another v. National
Insurance Company Limited & Others (2020) 3
SCC 57; Anjana Narayan Kamle v. Branch
Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Limited,
2023 ACJ 346; 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 - referred to.

List of Acts
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988
List of Keywords
Compensation; Rash and negligent manner;
Succumbed to her injuries; Travelling along with
his minor sister and parents; F.I.R. registered;
Charge sheet submitted; Sole negligence; Oral
and
documentary
evidence;
Awarded
compensation; Indemnified by the insurer;
Breach
of
policy
conditions;
Commercial
purposes;
Agricultural
purposes;
Comprehensively insured; Package policy; No
perversity in the findings; Statutory deposit;
Remit back

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal From
Order No. - 2387 of 2025
From
the
Judgment
and
Award
dated
27.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Saharanpur

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Arun Kumar Shukla
Advs. for the Respondents:

(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.66,036/-
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum has
been awarded in favour of minor claimant
(Rocky) for the injuries suffered by him in
an accident which occurred on 27.02.2021.

2. Factual matrix is that the injured
Rocky, aged about 7 years was travelling
with his minor sister Ishani, aged about 8
years and parents on a motorcycle 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
claimant?s mother. In this accident, the
claimant?s left leg was fractured and he
sustained injuries on other parts of his
body. Besides this, the claimant?s minor
10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Rocky & Ors.
925
sister was seriously injured and his 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
claimant?s 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.66,036/- 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 his minor sister 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
contributory negligence, unless it is
established that his very act of riding
along with two others, contributed either
926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 its's 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
of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is
untenable. Our understanding of the
10 All. United India Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Rocky & Ors.
927
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.

 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
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
his minor sister and parents was travelling
on the motorcycle, which was being driven
by his 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 (Rocky), his minor sister as well
as to his 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.

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
10 All. Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Yashoda & Ors.
929
to the sole negligence of the above
tractor?s 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.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 929
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2393 of 2025

Shriram General Insurance Com. Ltd.
...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Yashoda & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vijay Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal erred in concluding, on the basis
of evidence on record, that the accident was
caused solely due to rash and negligent driving
of offending Truck/Dumfer and in consequently
awarding
compensation
with
50%
future
prospects and interest thereon, particularly in
light of appellant-insurer's objections regarding
the delayed lodging of FIR, the alleged
inconsistency between the site plan and
Tribunal's findings on the manner of accident,
and the claim that future prospects and interest
thereon were wrongly computed.

Headnotes
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - ss. 171, 173 -
U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 - R. 220-A
- The case arises from a motor accident
dated 01.03.2015 at about 6:00 a.m.,
when
the
deceased
Ram
Khilawan
Rajpoot,
aged
about
37
years
and
employed with Kelly Services India Pvt.
Ltd., was travelling as a pillion rider on a
motorcycle driven in a cautious and
controlled
manner
towards
Ratanpur
Colony, Panki, when Truck/Dumfer No.
UP-92-T-3442, allegedly driven in a rash
and negligent manner and coming from
the
wrong
side,
collided
with
the
motorcycle, causing fatal injuries to the
deceased who died on the spot - FIR was
lodged
on
10.03.2015,
investigation
culminated in a charge sheet against the
driver of offending vehicle, and before the
Tribunal,
the
claimants
led
evidence
including the testimony of an eyewitness
(PW-3)
establishing
negligence,
upon
which
the
Tribunal
assessed
the
deceased's income, applied multiplier 15,
added 50% future prospects as per U.P.
Motor
Vehicle
Rules,
and
awarded
compensation of Rs. 18,34,000/- with 7%
interest to be indemnified by the insurer.

Held: The first informant is admittedly not an
eye-witness,
and
although
the
site
plan
indicates a head-on collision between the
Truck/Dumper and the motorcycle on which the
deceased was a pillion rider, the law laid down
in Jiju Kuruvila and Prabhavati (infra) makes it
clear that a site plan cannot, by itself, establish
negligence or the precise manner of the
accident. The Tribunal cannot treat the site plan
as determinative; the manner of occurrence and
the driver's negligence must be proved through
eye-witness testimony - In the present case, the
claimants examined PW-3 as an eye-witness,
who proved the occurrence of the accident and