Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Kusum & Ors.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (Oral)

Since both these appeals arise out of the same accident, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

By means of Appeal from Order No.386 of 2017 filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer/appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in M.A.C.T. Petition No. 70 of 2015, Smt. Kusum Devi and others vs. Reliance General Ins. Co. and Others, whereby an award of Rs. 27,24,111/- with interest @ 6% as compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal against the appellant.

By means of Appeal from Order No.287 of 2017 filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer/appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in M.A.C.T. Petition No. 60 of 2015, Smt. Laxmi Devi and others vs. Reliance General Ins. Co. and Others, whereby an award of Rs. 19,08,621/- with interest @ 6% as compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal against the appellant.

Briefly, the facts as narrated and averred in the claim petitions are that on 28.02.2015, the deceased, namely, Surendra Singh and Balvir Singh, were coming from Majra Mahadev to Pauri by a Maruti WagonR car bearing Registration No. UP-07-AP-4207. At about 7:00 PM, near Ghandiyal Bend within the limits of Mandakhal, the offending car met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and fell into a 500-metre-deep gorge. Consequently, Surendra Singh and Balvir Singh sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claim petitions have been filed on account of the aforesaid accident.

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant has assailed the said judgments and awards primarily on two grounds:

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in Appeal No.386 of 2017, Mr. Vinoda Nand Barthwal, submitted that there is sufficient material on record to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents pointed out that, while deciding Issue No. 1 in Claim Petition No. 70 of 2015, the statement of PW-2, Sandeep Naudiyal, states that the offending vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and that army canteen workers were travelling in it.

Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents, Mr. M. S. Bhandari, in Appeal No. 287 of 2017, would submit that, in paragraph 12 of the judgment rendered in MACT Petition No.60 of 2015, while deciding Issue No. 1, it has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that the fact of the accident is supported by the report of the Chick FIR, Paper No. 6C, in which it has been mentioned that three persons, namely, Surender Singh, Virender Singh, and Balvir Singh, died at the spot, while the other person, Om Prakash Bhatt, sustained grievous injuries.

He would further submit that the statement of PW-1 Laxmi Devi is supported by a copy of the post-mortem report and that the accident is admitted by the owner of the offending vehicle. He would thus submit that, since the FIR of the accident is on record, it is contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

In this regard, reference was made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 599, and, in particular, paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 thereof, which are extracted for ready reference:

In view of the said judgment in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), which has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mathew Alexander (supra), it was further submitted that a holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The FIR is prima facie evidence of the accident, and the claimants had discharged their burden of proving the manner and mode of the accident by relying upon the FIR.

Another aspect which has been agitated by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, in Claim Petition No. 70 of 2015, the certified copy of the cross-examination of eyewitness PW-2, Sandeep Naudiyal, which was recorded in Claim Petition No. 60 of 2015, could not have been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal.

Accordingly, the following two points for determination are framed for adjudication of this appeal:

After perusing the record and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and examining the file, it is clear that the FIR of the accident and the statements of the witnesses clearly state the circumstances of the accident.

However, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that rash and negligent driving is not established is not sustainable, since there is FIR of the accident and witnesses have stated about the accident. Also in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo (supra) and Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants.

In view of the above settled legal position and there being FIR of the accident, Point for Determination No. 1 is decided against the Insurance Company, holding that, in the instant case, on account of the FIR and the evidence on record, rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle is duly established. Consequently, there is no error in the impugned judgment on this ground.

So far as Point for Determination No. 2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has doubted the consideration of the certified copy of the cross-examination of a witness in one case in the other connected case. Though this submission is attractive at first blush, however, the same is unacceptable since the fact remains that the accident is one, in which three lives were lost, i.e., the lives of Balvir Singh and Surender Singh as well as one Virendra Singh. Therefore, the learned Tribunal could have very well considered the certified copy of the cross-examination of PW-2, Sandeep Naudiyal in Claim Petition No.70 of 2015 in the peculiar facts of the said petitions as they emanated out of one accident and evidence would be same in both of them. Since there was only one accident out of which both cases arose, wherein both Balvir Singh and Surender Singh lost their lives, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in considering the evidence recorded in the cross-examination in the connected proceedings.

Thus, point for determination No.2 is also answered against the appellant/insurance company.

In view of the above, no error is found in the impugned judgments and awards. The appeals lack merit and are accordingly dismissed.

The appellant/insurer is directed to remit the balance amount of compensation to the learned Tribunal within a period of 45 days from today. The Registry is also directed to remit the mandatory deposit to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

The original record be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal.