Supreme Court of India
Geeta Dubey vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 18 December, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
2024 INSC 998 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. ________ of 2024
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8551 of 2024)
GEETA DUBEY & ORS APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
CO. LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, filed by the claimants, assails the
judgment and final order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 68 of
2022. By the said appeal, the High Court, by a cryptic order, set
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.18
12:51:31 IST
Reason:
aside the award of the First Additional Motor Accident Claims
1
Tribunal, Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh dated
25.03.2021 (in short ‘MACT’). The MACT had, by the said
award, allowed the claim of appellant no. 1 and 2 herein, who are
the wife and son of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey and awarded
a compensation of Rs. 50,41,289/- against the respondents jointly
and severally.
3. The only ground on which the High Court has set aside the
award is that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to
prove the aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle
implicated in the case i.e. Truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197.
So holding, the appeal of the insurance company was allowed
and the award was completely set aside.
Brief facts :-
4. According to the claimants, Chakradhar Dubey – the
deceased was posted as Assistant Post-Master, Post Office
Sarlanagar, Tehsil Maihar. The deceased was returning to his
house at Purani Basti, Maihar sitting in car bearing No. MP-19-
2
CB-5879 of his friend Narayan Das Tiwari, after his duty, on
18.06.2018. At about 08:15 PM, one kilometer ahead of Sonwari
Toll Plaza, respondent no. 2 herein, who was the driver of the
vehicle of respondent no. 3, while driving the vehicle, (a truck
bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197) in a rash and negligent
manner hit the car in which the deceased was sitting. As a result,
Chakradhar Dubey suffered serious injuries and his spine was
broken. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Maihar for treatment.
5. On 21.06.2018, the First Information Report in Crime No.
352 of 2018 was registered at Maihar Police Station under
Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. We have perused the First
Information Report and we find the following recorded therein:
“12. First Information contents:
I am a resident of Housing Board Colony, Mehar,
Police Station Mehar. I was coming with my father
Narayan Das Tiwari son of Indramani Tiwari, aged
49 years, resident of Housing Board Colony Mehar,
Chakradhar Dubey son of Late Liladhar Dubey, aged
49 years, resident of Chaurasia Mohalla, Purani Basti
Mehar and Bharatlal Tiwari from Sarlanagar at
around 08:15 p.m. of 18/06/18 in my car No. U.V. MP
19CB5879. As soon as we reached around 1 Km.
3
ahead of Sonwari Toll Plaza, an unknown truck came
from behind in high speed and hit the car. As a result
of which, the car overturned and badly damaged. Due
to hit, injured Chakradhar Dubey sustained injuries
on his waist, throat and shoulder and Narayan Das
Tiwari sustained serious injuries on his left palm. The
driver of the truck ran away taking the truck from
there. The injured were taken to CHC Mehar in an
auto and were admitted there. After taking treatment,
I have come at police station to lodge the report today
on 21.06.18. The report was registered for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 337 IPC and
investigation was taken up and handed over to beat
incharge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. What is important to note is the FIR does mention material
particulars like time of the accident, the place of the accident and
also the fact that it was an unknown truck which had hit the car,
and about the injuries sustained by the deceased.
7. The claim petition thereafter sets out that after obtaining
treatment at Maihar Civil Hospital, Chakradhar Dubey was
treated at Nagpur Arneja Institute of Cardiology Private Limited
from 19.06.2018 and when he did not recover, he was taken back
to Maihar, where he died on 28.06.2018.
4
8. The claimant widow further avers that since she was busy
with the treatment and thereafter due to the death, the programs
relating thereto, she was not perfectly fit mentally to obtain
particulars and file a claim. The claimant widow states that on
being physically fit, she started collecting information about the
incident. She came to know that the accident was caused due to
the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 who drove the
truck of respondent no. 3. The claimant widow gave the
information to the Superintendent of Police.
9. It further transpires from the record that the police had
initially filed a closure report on 29.09.2018. However, thereafter
the claimant widow submitted an application stating that the
accident has been witnessed by Ashutosh @ Sonu Shukla, Kapil
Pandey and Janardan Paroha resident of Sarlanagar. The charge-
sheet avers that investigation was taken up again as per the order
of S.D.O.P. Maihar and the statement of Sonu Shukla S/o Ram
Lakhan was recorded along with statements of Janardan Paroha,
Kapil Pandey, Praful Dubey and Narayan Das Tiwari. It is stated
5
in the charge-sheet that as per their statements accident was
caused by the driver of the truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 by
driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and hitting the
car bearing No. MP-19-CB-5879; that Chakradhar Dubey, who
was sitting in the car had died during the course of treatment and
that the vehicle-truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 was seized.
The truck was thereafter given on Supurdnama by the Court. The
charge-sheet states that on completion of investigation, Challan
No. 656/2019 dated 25.08.2019 was prepared and filed in the
court. In the charge-sheet, 20 witnesses are listed and R-2 Ajay
Kumar Saket S/o Harideen Saket was shown as accused.
10. The claimants made a claim for Rs. 59,30,000/- on the basis
that the deceased was 55 years of age and he was working as
Assistant Post Master on a salary of Rs. 7,76,820/- per annum.
A sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was claimed towards compensation for
treatment; loss of income of Rs. 51,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/-
towards mental and physical agony was claimed. In all, the
amount claimed was Rs. 59,30,000/-
6
11. The insurance company disputed the claim. Before the
MACT, PW-2 Sonu Shukla was examined as an eyewitness who
spoke about the accident having happened. The insurance
company examined Raj Kumar Kachhwah on their behalf. The
challan of the Criminal case was also perused by the MACT. The
MACT held that the statement of the eye-witnesses had not been
rebutted. It also recorded the following finding, particularly, on
the aspect of how no complaint was made about the involvement
of the alleged truck in an illegal manner in an accident:-
“16. It is not disclosed in the perspective of above
investigation and above case laws that the said motor
vehicle has been involved in the case in false manner,
in that situation when any action or complaint is made
to the higher police officer about involvement of the
alleged truck in the case in illegal manner has been
made by the opposite party Insurance Company.
Therefore, it is found proved on the basis of analysis
that Car No. U.V.M.P. 19 CB/5879 was hit from
behind by the driver of Truck No. М.Р. 19 НА 1197
on the date of accident while driving the said vehicle
carelessly and negligently, as a result of which,
Chakradhar Dubey who was sitting in the said car was
seriously injured and had died. It is contended by
Opposite Party No.3 that there was contributory
negligence on the part of Car No. M.P. 19 C.D. 5879
in which the deceased was sitting and contended that
the accident took place due to the negligence of driver
7
of the said car but no oral and documentary evidence
has been produced in this regard. Therefore, Issue No.
1 is concluded in the affirmative and Issue Nos. 4 and
5 are concluded in the negative.”
12. It will be noticed that one of the pleas of the insurance
company was that there was contributory negligence. Even the
insurance company did not dispute the factum of accident and
the factum of the death of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey. The
only dispute is about the involvement of the truck bearing no.
MP-19-HA-1197 on which the MACT found that there was
adequate evidence to show its involvement in the accident.
Thereafter, the MACT, after applying the appropriate multiplier,
awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,41,289/-.
13. The Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High
Court. The two grounds that were raised were about the denial of
the involvement of the truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 and
the fact that the deceased was about 58 years of age and that the
multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied instead of 11. The
High Court has, by a very summary order, allowed the appeal.
8
14. We have heard Mr. Girijesh Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellants and Ms. Nanita Sharma, learned counsel for the
insurance company who have reiterated their respective
contentions. We have perused the records and also the written
submissions filed.
15. The only question that arises is, was the High Court
justified in setting aside the order of the MACT. The High Court,
in its cryptic order, has held as under:-
“After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going
through the record, few things needs elaboration. Praful
Dubey, PW-1 has though said in para 3 of his deposition
that his mother had lost her mental balance at the time of
the incident and his sister Pooja and Priyanka were
residing in their in-laws house and he was studying at
Indore pursuing his B.E., but it has not come on record
that when author of the FIR is the occupant of the car
namely Narayan Das Tiwari who was traveling in the car
bearing No. M.P. No. 19 CB 5879 and he had lodged
report against unknown vehicle and there is evidence of
the star witness Sanu Shukla that he had visited house of
the deceased after 8-10 days of the incident when
Chakradhar Dubey had passed away, then it is not evident
that why number of the offending vehicle was not given
to the other relative including PW-1. There is no
exp1aihition for this lacuna.
9
It is true as submitted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha
that Insurance Company did not lead any cogent evidence
of any eye witness but the fact of the matter is that
claimants were required to proof their own case. There is
long delay of about ten months in pursuing the case. Date
of accident i.e. 18.06.2018 is not disputed, date of taking
statements on 20.04.2019 is also not disputed. There is a
long gap often months in between.
Thus, when all these aspects are taken into consideration
and also the fact that claimants never sought any
investigation in regard to the CCTV footage or production
of CCTV footage to prove the aspect of accident taking
place from the vehicle which has been implicated in the
present case i.e. truck bearing No. MP19-HA-1197,
impugned award having being passed on misplaced
sympathy and inappropriate appreciation of evidence
available on record cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, impugned award is set aside. Appeal is
allowed and disposed of.”
16. We are surprised that in a First Appeal filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court has made a
short shrift of the matter and by a summary order reversed the
detailed award passed by the MACT. An appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of the First Appeal.
In our considered view, the least that is expected is a careful
marshalling of the oral and documentary evidence produced
10
before the MACT. Except for a fleeting reference to the evidence
of PW-2, there is no real discussion on the substance of his
deposition. What is matter of concern is that there is no reference
at all to Exh.P-1 final report, Exh.P-2 the First Information
Report, Exh.P-16 the seizure memo of the vehicle after the
issuance of Section 133 notice under the Motor Vehicles Act and
also no discussion on the findings of the MACT.
17. It is well settled by several pronouncements of this Court
that an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is
essentially in the nature of the first appeal like Section 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code. It has been held by this Court that the
High Court is under a legal obligation to decide all issues both
on facts and law after appreciating the entire
evidence. [See Sudarsan Puhan vs. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty and
Others, (2018) 10 SCC 552, Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Mamta and Others, (2016) 4 SCC
172 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar and
11
Others, (2000) 10 SCC 158]. This is a fortiori when the High
Court proposes to reverse the well-reasoned award.
18. We were initially considering whether the matter should be
remanded for fresh consideration by the High Court. However,
since the incident is of the year 2018, and already 6 years had
elapsed, we felt that any further delay will only compound the
agony of the already devastated family. Hence, we have
proceeded to analyse the facts ourselves.
19. Except for a bare assertion that the vehicle has been
wrongly involved, the insurance company which has setup a plea
of collusion has done nothing to make good its case. We find that
the judgment of the High Court is wholly untenable. We say so
for the following reasons.
20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the
accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned
is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same
on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable
12
doubt. [See Sajeena Ikhbal and Others, V. Mini Babu George
and Others, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it
appropriate to extract the following paragraphs from the
judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi & Ors. V. Himachal Road
Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530. Repelling
similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the
involvement of the vehicle in question, this Court held as
follows:
“14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant’s
witnesses might have occurred but the core question
before the Tribunal and consequently before the High
Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved
in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the
said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle
underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions
of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a
dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot
at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by
Respondents 2 and 3.
15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly
taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be
borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible
to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to
establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of
13
probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable
doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose,
the High Court should have taken into consideration the
respective stories set forth by both the parties.
16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is
based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the
police might have implicated the respondents, no reason
has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought
on record has been referred to for the said purpose.”
21. Secondly, applying the test of preponderance of probability,
we find that the claimants have established their case that it was
the truck bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197 which was
involved in the accident with car bearing no. MP-19-CB-5879
wherein the deceased was travelling. We say so for the following
reasons:-
a. The accident occurred on 18.06.2018 and the FIR was
lodged on 21.06.2018 clearly giving the date, time and the
place where the accident happened. It was also mentioned that
it was an unknown truck which came from behind in high
speed and hit the car as at that point the claimants were
14
unaware of the number of the truck. It referred to the injuriessuffered by the deceased.
b. It is also beyond dispute that the husband of the claimant
no. 1, the deceased Chakradhar Dubey was treated at Nagpur
Arneja Institute of Cardiology Private Limited and he died on
28.06.2018.
c. The claimants have explained the delay by clearly stating
that after the death, they took time to regroup themselves and
set about investigating and collecting information about the
accident.
d. No sooner they obtained information, the claimant no. 1
submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police
giving the list of persons including the name of PW-2 Sonu
Shukla who had witnessed the accident.
e. Based on the application, the investigation which was
originally closed was taken up again as per the order of
S.D.O.P., Maihar and after recording the statements of
witnesses, a charge-sheet was filed for offences under
15
Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304A, and the case is still pending
against respondent no. 2- the driver.
f. It is also on record that after the application was given by
claimant no. 1, a notice under Section 133 of the Motor
Vehicles Act was issued to the owner and the vehicle was
seized under Exh.P-16 by the police. It has also come on
record that the truck was thereafter given on supurdnama by
the court to the owner.
g. Sonu Shukla was examined as PW-2 and he has clearly
deposed that on 18.06.2018, when he was going from
Sarlanagar to Maihar with his colleague Kapil Pandey when
respondent no. 2, who was driving the truck bearing
registration no. MP-19-HA-1197 in a rash and negligent
manner, at around 08:15 PM hit the car bearing registration
no. MP-19-CB-5879 in which the deceased was travelling. No
doubt, the witness states that he gave the information to
claimant no. 1. The witness also states that he had taken
Chakradhar Dubey to Civil Hospital, Maihar and on the same
16
day informed the claimant’s family about the incident.
However, he states that he did not inform the police and went
back home. The witness admits that his statement was
recorded only on 20.04.2019. The witness, however, does not
mention that he mentioned the truck number to the family
when he conveyed the news of the accident. The witness was
cross-examined but he stood by his statement. The witness
also stated that on a specific question in cross that the front
part of the vehicle bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197
was of white colour and the body was of red colour and the
vehicle was of 12 wheels. The witness also stated that the truck
belonged to Sanjeev Kumar Vyasi and denied that the said
owner was his relative.
h. The insurance company examined Op.W.-1 Raj Kumar
Kachhwah who admitted that till the date of his deposition, no
information or complaint was given to the senior police
officers stating that an attempt is being made by the claimants
and the owner and driver of the vehicle to wrongly include the
vehicle bearing No. MP-19-HA-1197 in the case. The witness
17
also admitted that no steps to cancel the investigation of the
police has been taken and no enquiry has been done into the
veracity of the claim.
i. The MACT, on appreciation of the overall conspectus,
particularly impressed by the fact that the insurance company
did not lodge any complaint of collusion and about the
involvement of the truck in an illegal manner concluded that
it was truck bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197 which
hit the car bearing no. MP-19-CB-5879 from behind.
22. Thirdly, the claimants having discharged the initial onus, if
the insurance company had a case that there was collusion
between the driver/owner of the truck and the claimants, it ought
to discharge that burden. It is candidly admitted by the witness
Raj Kumar Kachhwah that they had taken no steps in this regard.
23. As held in Sajeena Ikhbal (supra) and Bimla Devi (supra),
we are convinced that on the principle of preponderance of
probability, the claimants have established the involvement of
18
vehicle bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197. The insurance
company having set up a specific plea of collusion has not
established the same. As was held in Bimla Devi (supra), here
too, we feel that there was no reason for the police to falsely
implicate the vehicle concerned in the matter and launch
prosecution against the driver. If the insurance company had
suspected collusion, they would have taken steps to file
appropriate complaints including moving the higher police
authorities or the court to order an investigation into the alleged
wrongful involvement of the vehicle. There is no case for the
insurance company that the police officer also colluded. The
investigation by the police has resulted in charge-sheet being
filed.
24. For all these reasons, we restore the findings of the MACT
that death of the claimant no.1’s husband was caused by the
driving of the truck bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197 by
respondent no. 2-Ajay Kumar in a rash and negligent manner at
19
about 08:15 PM on 18.06.2018, in a place one kilometer ahead
of Sonwari Toll Plaza at Maihar.
25. The only other point raised in the memo of appeal before
the High Court by the insurance company is that the deceased
was about 58 years of age and that the multiplier of 9 ought to
have been applied instead of 11. The High Court had no occasion
to discuss the same as it allowed the insurance company’s appeal
on the aspect of the vehicle not being involved in the accident.
Before us also, no arguments were advanced on the issue of the
wrong application of the multiplier. The MACT has relied on the
age, as mentioned in the postmortem report, as 55 years and has
applied the appropriate multiplier. The insurance company
claims that the school certificate and the Aadhar Card reveal the
date of birth of the deceased as 01.08.1960.
26. No evidence has been adduced by the insurance company
to show that the age was 58 years. The claimants have clearly
pleaded in the claim petition that the age of the deceased was 55
20
years and proved the same. Hence, we reject the contention of
the insurance company on this score also.
27. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed. The
judgment of the High Court dated 24.08.2023 in MA No. 68 of
2022 is quashed and set aside and the award passed by the
MACT, Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh dated
25.03.2021 is restored. No order as to costs.
……………………………J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
…………………………….J.
[K. V. VISWANATHAN]
New Delhi;
18th December, 2024.
21