ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. KAMRUDDIN & ORS

1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the Award dated 19th December 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (‘Tribunal/MACT’) in MACT No.310/2016, whereby compensation of Rs.26,28,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum was awarded.

2. Mr. Anshul Mehral, counsel appearing on behalf of appellant/Insurance Company, states that the challenge is primarily to the involvement of the offending vehicle itself.

3. On 28th February 2015, at about 5:30 p.m., the deceased, Faizan, and his cousin, Hamid, were standing near a motorcycle in front of the shop of Mohan Seth Adhat at Khandoli Chauraha, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, when the offending tractor bearing registration no. UP-80-BV-3730, allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck them with great force, causing both of them to fall on the road. They were immediately taken to the hospital. Faizan was declared ‘brought dead’, and his post-mortem was conducted at Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital, Delhi. An FIR was registered, which ultimately culminated in the filing of a charge-sheet.

4. Initially, by order dated 06th November 2017, the MACT dismissed the claim petition on the ground that negligence had not been proved. The claimants thereafter filed MAC.APP. 143/2018 before this Court, which was decided by a detailed order dated 05th September 2019. Counsel for both parties have drawn the Court's attention to the said order.

5. This Court has recorded the DD entry and the sequence of events that transpired after the recording of the FIR. The Court then gives its opinion, which is as under: “An FIR was registered. A chargesheet was prepared against the accused. Criminal proceedings are still underway. The identity of the vehicle is not in doubt. The impugned order has declined the award of compensation primarily on the ground that there was three days' delay in registration of the FIR. This Court is of the view that in the circumstances of the present case, where serious injuries had been caused to both the victims, one of whom was rushed to Delhi and was declared dead; the shocked and worried family and relatives of the victims would be least bothered about technical temporal affairs such as registration of an FIR. Prompt medical care and saving the life of the grievously injured, would be the only concern and priority in that difficult moment. All-the-more-so, when the victim had to be rushed, hundreds of kilometers away from the site of the accident to Delhi for the best possible medical care. Loss of the life of a young man in a motor vehicular accident, who was just about 19 years of age, would for his family be a difficult circumstance. There was a continuity in the sequence of events till the registration of the FIR which may have been registered later but nevertheless, a DD Entry was made on the very next day of the accident, i.e. roughly within 24 hours. The same cannot be treated as delay because it was occasioned by the natural response of his family to first instance, to rush the injured to a hospital where he could get medical assistance.” (emphasis added)

6. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication of the ‘claim’. Pursuant thereto, the claim has been adjudicated by the impugned Award dated 19th December 2019. Once again, the Insurance Company has challenged the Award on substantially the same grounds.

7. However, the Court heard the submissions of the parties and reassessed the matter. The prime contention of the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the chargesheet notes that, only after the registration of the FIR on 03rd March 2015, did the investigation proceed, while the testimony of R1W[1] (driver) and R2W[1] (owner) both bear out that their vehicle was taken in custody by the police on 28th February 2015 itself by the Khandoli Police.

8. In this view of the matter, it has been argued by Mr. Mehral that there is inconsistency in the statement of driver and owner and the chargesheet itself, since, if the vehicle had already been seized on 28th February 2015, there was no reason for the investigation to have commenced only on 03rd March 2015.

9. Mr. Salim Malik, counsel for the claimant, however, counters this by stating that the narration in the charge-sheet is only for the sake of completion. He submits that the investigation continued, after the FIR was registered, on the basis of the complaint lodged by the father of the deceased. Since the offending vehicle had already been taken into custody, the father of the deceased had registered a complaint and furnished details of the vehicle, including its engine number, as well as the details of the driver. There could be nothing fatally suspicious in that.

10. The issue relating to proof of negligence was recently considered by the Supreme Court in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, wherein the Court reiterated the settled principles governing the determination of negligence in motor accident claims. The relevant observations are extracted below: “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.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to the claimants.”

11. In Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. 2025:INSC:600, the Supreme Court has observed that in cases where the eyewitness was not examined, reliance on FIR and charge-sheet was enough for the finding of negligence to be established. In this regard, the relevant paragraphs are as under: “2. The claimants before the Tribunal have filed an appeal from the order of the High Court which allowed the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the claim petition for reason of no eyewitness having been examined to prove the rash and negligent driving.

3. On facts, it needs to be stated that the accident occurred on 29.01.2015 when the deceased was travelling pillion in a motorbike driven and owned by the second respondent. The FIR was lodged against the owner driver of the vehicle for the offence of rash and negligent driving. A charge sheet was filed against the owner driver. The owner driver filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying the rash and negligent driving on his part, however he did not mount the box to depose that it was not due to his fault that the accident occurred.

4. As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established.”

12. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant do not merit acceptance by this Court. The accident resulted in the registration of an FIR, followed by the filing of a chargesheet. Therefore, even applying the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ranjeet (supra) and Meera Bai (supra), the finding on negligence cannot be displaced.