Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company vs Shri Archna Jha on 21 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284
1 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 7295 of 2023
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
SHRI ARCHNA JHA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naresh Singh Tomar- Advocate for appellant.
Shri Akhilesh Kumar Gupta - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 6.
ORDER
This Misc. Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed
against the Award dated 07.08.2023 passed by First Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) in MACC No.84/2022.
2. It is the case of appellant that although the vehicular accident took place on
10.07.2022 but documents of criminal case indicate that the offending vehicle was
falsely implicated in order to take compensation. It is submitted that Luvkush Jha
(PW-2) was not a pillion rider and in fact he has falsely claimed himself to be a
pillion rider. It is submitted that in the Lash Panchnama (Ex.P/15), which was also
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284
2 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
signed by Luvkush Jha (PW-2), details of accident have not been disclosed which
clearly shows that on 14.07.2022 Luvkush Jha (PW-2) was not aware of the
manner in which the accident took place and was also not aware about the details
of the offending vehicle.
3. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
4. The solitary ground raised by counsel for appellant for disbelieving the
evidence of Luvkush Jha (PW-2) is on the basis of Lash Panchnama (Ex.P-15).
This Panchnama was prepared on 14.07.2022 and Luvkush Jha (PW-2) was one
of the signatories. In the Lash Panchnama, details of offending vehicle and name
of driver have not been mentioned. The Supreme Court in the case of Guiram
Mondal v. State of W.B., reported in (2013) 15 SCC 284 has held as under :
12. The inquest report normally would not contain the manner in
which the incident took place or the names of eyewitnesses as
well as the names of accused persons. The basic purpose of
holding an inquest is to report regarding the cause of death,
namely, whether it is suicidal, homicidal, accidental, etc.
Reference may be made to the judgments of this Court in Pedda
Narayana v. State of A.P. and Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh.
13. In Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. this Court held that
the scope of inquest is limited and is confined to ascertainment
of apparent cause of death. Inquest is concerned with discovering
whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or
homicidal, and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument
the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. The details
of overt acts need not be recorded in the inquest report. The High
Court has rightly held that the manner and approach of the trial
court in disbelieving the prosecution story by placing reliance on
the inquest report was erroneous and bad in law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284
3 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
Therefore, it is clear that the very purpose of preparing Lash Panchnama is
to find out the condition of dead body and the purpose is not to find out that who
had caused the death of deceased. Therefore, if details of the offending vehicle
and the name of driver of vehicle are not mentioned in the Lash Panchnama, then
that would not make the witness unreliable. Furthermore, Supreme Court in the
case of Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation
and others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486 has held as under :-
“21. We have no hesitation in observing that such a hypertechnical
and trivial approach of the High Court cannot be sustained in a
case for compensation under the Act, in connection with a motor
vehicle accident resulting in the death of a family member.
Recently, in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Mangla
Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3
SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 819] (to which one of us,
Khanwilkar, J. was a party), this Court has restated the position as
to the approach to be adopted in accident claim cases. In that case,
the Court was dealing with a case of an accident between a
motorcycle and a jeep, where the Tribunal had relied upon the FIR
and charge-sheet, as well as the accompanying statements of the
complainant and witnesses, to opine that the police records
confirmed the occurrence of an accident and also the identity of
the offending jeep but the High Court had overturned [Pratap
Singh v. Mangla Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3765] that finding
inter alia on the ground that the oral evidence supporting such a
finding had been discarded by the Tribunal itself and that reliance
solely on the document forming part of the police record was
insufficient to arrive at such a finding. Disapproving that
approach, this Court, after adverting to multitude of cases under
the Act, noted as follows: (Mangla Ram case [Mangla
Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3
SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 819] , SCC pp. 667-71, paras
22-25)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12844 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
“22. The question is: Whether this approach of the High
Court can be sustained in law? While dealing with a similar
situation, this Court in Bimla Devi [Bimla Devi v. Himachal
RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 189 : (2010)
1 SCC (Cri) 1101] noted the defence of the driver and
conductor of the bus which inter alia was to cast a doubt on
the police record indicating that the person standing at the
rear side of the bus, suffered head injury when the bus was
being reversed without blowing any horn. This Court
observed that while dealing with the claim petition in terms
of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal
stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties, its
function is to determine the amount of fair compensation. In
paras 11-15, the Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 533-34)
’11. While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal stricto sensu
is not bound by the pleadings of the parties; its function
being to determine the amount of fair compensation in the
event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of
that driver of a motor vehicle. It is true that occurrence of an
accident having regard to the provisions contained in Section
166 of the Act is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim
petition but that would not mean that despite evidence to the
effect that death of the claimant’s predecessor had taken
place by reason of an accident caused by a motor vehicle,
the same would be ignored only on the basis of a post-
mortem report vis-à-vis the averments made in a claim
petition.
12. The deceased was a constable. Death took place near a
police station. The post-mortem report clearly suggests that
the deceased died of a brain injury. The place of accident is
not far from the police station. It is, therefore, difficult to
believe the story of the driver of the bus that he slept in the
bus and in the morning found a dead body wrapped in a
blanket. If the death of the constable had taken place earlier,
it is wholly unlikely that his dead body in a small town like
Dharampur would remain undetected throughout the night
particularly when it was lying at a bus-stand and near a
police station. In such an event, the court can presume thatSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12845 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
the police officers themselves should have taken possession
of the dead body.
13. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly
proceeded on the basis that apparently there was absolutely
no reason to falsely implicate Respondents 2 and 3. The
claimant was not at the place of occurrence. She, therefore,
might not be aware of the details as to how the accident took
place but the fact that the first information report had been
lodged in relation to an accident could not have been ignored.
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
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.’
(emphasis supplied)
The Court restated the legal position that the claimants were
merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance
of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
cannot be applied by the Tribunal while dealing with the motor
accident cases. Even in that case, the view taken by the High
Court to reverse similar findings, recorded by the Tribunal was set
aside.
23. Following the enunciation in Bimla Devi case [Bimla
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12846 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC
(Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] , this Court
in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand [Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand,
(2011) 11 SCC 635 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 828 : (2011) 3 SCC
(Cri) 605] noted that when filing of the complaint was not
disputed, the decision of the Tribunal ought not to have been
reversed by the High Court [Amir Chand v. Parmeshwari,
2009 SCC OnLine P&H 9302] on the ground that nobody
came from the office of the SSP to prove the complaint. The
Court appreciated the testimony of the eyewitnesses in paras
12 & 13 and observed thus: (Parmeshwari
case [Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635 :
(2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 828 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 605] , SCC p.
638)
’12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed
[Amir Chand v. Parmeshwari, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 9302]
the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed
Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally
conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a
good citizen, Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant
by helping her to reach the doctor’s chamber in order to ensure
that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence
of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not
file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our
observation that the total approach of the High Court,
unfortunately, was not sensitised enough to appreciate the
plight of the victim.
13. The other so-called reason in the High Court’s order was
that as the claim petition was filed after four months of the
accident, the same is ‘a device to grab money from the
insurance company’. This finding in the absence of any
material is certainly perverse. The High Court appears to be
not cognizant of the principle that in a road accident claim, the
strict principles of proof in a criminal case are not attracted.
…’
24. It will be useful to advert to the dictum in N.K.V. Bros. (P)
Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal [N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. v. M.
Karumai Ammal, (1980) 3 SCC 457 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 774] ,
wherein it was contended by the vehicle owner that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284
7 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal
and for which reason the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act
ought to be rejected. This Court negatived the said argument
by observing that the nature of proof required to establish
culpable rashness, punishable under IPC, is more stringent
than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create
liability. The observation made in para 3 of the judgment
would throw some light as to what should be the approach of
the Tribunal in motor accident cases. The same reads thus:
(SCC pp. 458-59)
‘3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country,
specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This
proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been
observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial
presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that
innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not
escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some
obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be
inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable.
The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and
mystic maybes. We are emphasising this aspect because we
are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it
thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not
exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the
matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of
culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and
driver to their responsibility to their neighbour. Indeed, the
State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation.
A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the
compensation or undue parsimony practised by tribunals. We
must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and
Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential
foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of
citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in
compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the
enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in
compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several
years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunalsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12848 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
and the High Courts should insist upon quick disposals so that
the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be
magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are
unjustly indifferent in this regard.’
25. In Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim
Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , this Court examined similar situation
where the evidence of claimant’s eyewitness was discarded by
the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted
in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court,
however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon
investigation of the case registered against the respondent,
prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put
him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the
evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the
Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability
and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
could not have been applied as noted in Bimla Devi [Bimla
Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 13 SCC 530 : (2009) 5 SCC
(Civ) 189 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] . In paras 8 & 9 of the
reported decision, the dictum in United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Shila Datta [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila
Datta, (2011) 10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 : (2012)
1 SCC (Cri) 328] , has been adverted to as under: (Dulcina
Fernandes case [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz,
(2013) 10 SCC 646 : (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC
(Cri) 13] , SCC p. 650)
‘8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila
Datta [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta,
(2011) 10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 : (2012) 1
SCC (Cri) 328] while considering the nature of a claim
petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a three-Judge
Bench of this Court has culled out certain propositions of
which Propositions (ii), (v) and (vi) would be relevant to the
facts of the present case and, therefore, may be extracted
hereinbelow: (SCC p. 518, para 10)
“10. … (ii) The rules of pleadings do not strictly apply as
the claimant is required to make an application in a form
prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284
9 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal.
***
(v) Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines
the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial
litigation. …
(vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary
procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons
possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to
inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry.”
9. The following further observation available in para 10 of
the Report would require specific note: (Shila Datta
case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, (2011)
10 SCC 509 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 798 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri)
328] , SCC p. 519)
“10. … We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show
that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial
adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a
statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of
an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the
statute.”‘
In para 10 of Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 :
(2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13] , the Court
opined that non-examination of witness per se cannot be
treated as fatal to the claim set up before the Tribunal. In other
words, the approach of the Tribunal should be holistic analysis
of the entire pleadings and evidence by applying the principles
of preponderance of probability.”
22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once
the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the
accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be
to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had
taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor
vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly
bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding
cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof
to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and
not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284
10 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
is followed in criminal cases.”
5. Under these circumstances, it is clear that documents of criminal case
cannot be looked into to dislodge the evidence led by the parties before the
Claims Tribunal. The claim cases are to be decided on the basis of material and
evidence led before the Tribunal.
6. It is submitted by counsel for appellant that if Luvkush Jha (PW-2) was the
pillion rider and motorcycle was dashed from behind then even Luvkush Jha
(PW-2) should have sustained injuries. Since he has not sustained any injury,
therefore, it is clear that he was not a pillion rider.
7. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellant.
8. Post mortem report of deceased Krishnakant Ojha has been filed as
Ex.P/17. From aforesaid post-mortem report it is clear that one stitch wound of 4
cm. was found over right temporal region; one stitch wound of 3.5 cm. was found
on the outer aspect of right eye; one brownish abrasion of size 2×1 cm. was
present over front of upper neck; one brownish abrasion of size 1×1 cm over
posterior aspect of right elbow and one brownish abrasion of size 1×0.5 cm was
present over knuckle of right hand. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was not run
over by any vehicle but he sustained injuries on account of fall. According to post
mortem report, the cause of death was head injury and its complication. Thus, it
appears that head of deceased had dashed against road on account of fall, then it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1284
11 M.A. No. 7295 of 2023
does not mean that pillion rider should also have sustained injuries. Under these
circumstances, if pillion rider has not sustained any injury then, that by itself,
would not make the evidence of pillion rider unreliable. Thus, it is clear that
Claims Tribunal did not commit any mistake by relying upon the evidence of
Luvkush Jha (PW-2). No other argument is advanced by counsel for appellant.
9. Ex consequenti, the award dated 07.08.2023 passed by First Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) in MACC No.84/2022
is hereby affirmed.
10. Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 1/24/2025
5:41:38 AM