Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2337
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
ABDUL MOIN, J.
Uttar Pradesh State Rd. Transport Corp. Faizabad - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Meena Srivastava And Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 602 of 2011, First Appeal From Order No. 670 of 2011
Decided On : 09-04-2025
.
For the Parties : J.B Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava Vivek Kumar Pandey, Amit Tripathi, M.A. Siddiqui, Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities, and reliance on corroborative evidence such as FIR and charge-sheet is permissible.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claim for compensation - Judgment and order dated 10.03.2011 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding Rs.12,85,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum challenged - Accident occurred on 06.09.2007 when deceased's leg got stuck in the bus door, leading to his death. The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the bus driver and awarded compensation based on the deceased's son's salary rather than his actual salary slip, which was deemed unproven. The appeal is dismissed, and the case is remitted for reconsideration of compensation. (Paras 5, 40, 42, 45)
(B) Standard of proof in claim proceedings - Claimants need only establish their case on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 36, 38)
(C) Legal principle regarding reliance on police documents - FIR, charge-sheet, and site plan may be considered as corroborative evidence in claims. (Paras 22, 30, 38)
Facts of the case:
The deceased, while alighting from Bus No. UP 42 T3542, was dragged due to negligence, resulting in his death. The Corporation contended the bus was not on the route.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the accident occurred due to the bus driver's negligence and awarded compensation based on the son's salary.
Issues: Whether the accident occurred as claimed and the adequacy of compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Tribunal's finding of negligence, emphasizing that strict proof of the accident was not required, and the standard of proof was based on probabilities.
Result: Appeals dismissed; case remitted for reconsideration of compensation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and initial claim context. (Para 2 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant's arguments against the tribunal's findings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. respondents' arguments supporting the tribunal's decision. (Para 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 4. legal standards for proving negligence in accident claims. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. discussion on compensation calculation methods. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 6. court's reliance on supreme court precedents. (Para 36 , 38) |
| 7. final orders and directions for tribunal. (Para 40 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT :
(Abdul Moin, J.)
1. Heard Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Amit Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The connected appeal i.e. FAFO No.670 of 2011 has been filed praying for enhancement of the awarded amount.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties state that the facts involved in both the appeals are common.
4. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide both the appeals together by way of a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts of the FAFO No.602 of 2011 are being taken.
5. Under challenge is the judgment and order dated 10.03.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / court No.2, Faizabad in Claim Application No.257 of 2009 in Re: Smt. Meena Srivastava and Others Vs. U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation and Others . By the said judgment, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,85,000/- in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum.
6. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts set forth by learned counsel for the contesting parties are that an accident occurred on 06.09.2007 when one Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, the husband of claimant No.1 and the father of the claimants No.2 & 3 / respondents No.1 to 3 in the appeal, died on account of accident. The accident is said to have occurred when the deceased was alighting from a bus No. UP 42 T3542 around 07:00 in the evening in front of Seth Petrol Pump, Sultanpur. As per the claimants, the leg of the deceased got stuck in the bus while alighting and the bus started off without noticing that the leg of the passenger was stuck in the bus and after driving for some time, when certain persons stopped the bus then it was noticed that Shri Pradeep Kumar Srviastava was seriously injured. He was shifted to the hospital where he was declared brought dead.
7. Upon filing of the claim application, the corporation put in appearance and denied the incident. The sheet anchor of the denial on the part of the Corporation was that the bus was not operating on the route in question rather the route of the bus was Faizabad - Allahabad and thus it was contended that once the place at which the incident occurred in Sultanpur, i.e. opposite of the petrol pump, did not fall within the ambit of the route which had to be taken by the bus, thus, there was no occasion for the bus to have been involved in an accident and as such there is no question of any claim being awarded against the Corporation.
8. The learned Tribunal framed various issues of which issue no.1 was as to whether on 06.09.2007 at 07:00 P.M., Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava while alighting from the Bus No. UP 42 T3542 fell down and his leg got stuck in the door of the bus and he was dragged along with bus and thereafter he died on account of the injuries sustained by him.
9. Another issue with which the connected appeal i.e. FAFO No.670 of 2011 is concerned is as to the compensation to which the claimants are entitled to.
10. Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant had vehemently argued on issue No.1, which has been decided in favour of the claimants, wherein the learned Tribunal has held that an accident occurred from the bus in question on the fateful day i.e. 06.09.2007 in which Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava died.
11. The argument of Shri Srivastava is that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider the issue on the basis of the documents that were led
