The court reinforced that the deceased's death was due to a motor vehicle accident caused by negligent driving; emphasized that post-mortem reports are not essential for proving accidental deaths.

GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

M. A. No. 341 of 2016

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V Act,1988, by which the liability has been fixed on it in Title (M.V) Suit No. 23 of 2006 for the death of deceased-Shankar Lal Barnwal in a motor vehicle accident.

2. As per the case of the claimant, the deceased on 08.10.2005 was travelling on a Commander Jeep bearing Registration No. JH10A- 4574 as a passenger, when due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died during course of treatment. The claimants are widow, one daughter and three sons of the deceased.

3. The claim case was filed impleading the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle.

4. The Tribunal awarded a compensation recording a finding that the death was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Commander Jeep bearing Registration No. JH10A-4574 which met with an accident, while he was travelling as passenger in the said vehicle. The vehicle was under the insurance cover of the appellant company and there was no breach of terms of insurance policy.

5. The judgment and award have been assailed on the ground that the FIR (Ext. 16) was lodged immediately after the accident, wherein it has been stated that the deceased-Shankar Lal Barnwal was travelling on the roof top of the said Commander Jeep. Author of the fardbeyan was the deceased himself. Further, the postmortem examination report has not been adduced into evidence to prove that the deceased died in the said motor vehicle accident. The only documentary evidence which has been produced is Ext. 1, which is original dead-body carrying certificate of the deceased, which does not disclose the cause of death or the injuries sustained by him. It is submitted that since in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Branch Manager of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Giriraj Prasad Agrawal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2421 of 2008) wherein the compensation was not awarded in a case where the deceased was travelling at the roof top.

6. It is argued on behalf of the claimants that the doctor, who examined the deceased, has been examined as PW 6 and he has proved the injury report. There has not been any cross-examination regarding the injuries suffered by the deceased in the motor vehicle accident.

7. At the outset, it may be noted that post mortem examination report is not a sine qua non for the proof of accidental death of a person in a motor vehicle accident. Facts in a motor vehicle case are proved by preponderance of probability and a strict proof is not required.

8. In the present case after the accident on the very same day FIR was lodged being Pirtand P.S Case No. 35/2005 under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304(A) of the IPC against the driver of Jeep No.-JH-10 A 4571 regarding the death of one and grievous injury to others. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Doctor who examined the deceased in an injured condition has been examined on behalf of the claimants and he has proved the injury report (Ext-17 and 18). Ext-2 is the death certificate issued by the Ranchi Nagar Nigam. No contrary evidence has been led on behalf of the appellant in support of the contention that death was not accidental. AW-1 and AW-2 have deposed that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident when he was travelling in the offending vehicle. Thus, this Court is of the view that there is no in