In negligence claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probabilities; insurers cannot avoid liability for permit breaches if the vehicle was used in an accident resulting in third-party compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending bus No.UP-23T-0434, against the impugned judgment and award dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut (North), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 218 of 2018 ( Mukesh Agrawal and another vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others ), whereby, for the untimely death of Jatin Agrawal in a motor accident that occurred on 12.01.2018, a compensation of Rs.16,65,876/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum has been awarded to the claimants (mother and father), which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending bus No.UP-23T-0434.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the factum of accident was doubtful since the FIR discloses that it was caused by unknown vehicle. He submitted that as per the claimants case, the accident occurred on 12.01.2018 at the Toll Plaza near Brij Ghat, District Hapur at about 8 PM, but the offending bus was challaned for breach of the terms and conditions of the All India Tourist Permit granted to it by Rajesh Singh (ARTO Amroha) at Gajraula at 7:48 PM, which is at a distance of about 30 kms. from the place of accident, as such, the factum of accident at about 08.00 PM or 7:45 PM as per eyewitness PW-2 was highly doubtful. He further submitted that the owner of the offending bus has denied the accident and also made a complaint to the higher police officials, but still the tribunal has held otherwise. The offending driver has also examined himself as DW-1 and denied the accident. It was further submitted that at the time of alleged accident the offending bus was being plied as a stage carriage whereas, under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it was to be plied as contract carriage and for this reason, it was challaned by the ARTO Amroha, but the tribunal has ignored this evidence and has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-insurance company, which is erroneous.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that Jatin Agrawal(deceased) was employed in MEP Infrastructure Developers Ltd. who was granted contract to collect the toll at Allabakshpur Toll Tax Plaza, on NH-24 near Brij Ghat, District Hapur and at that time he was working as operator at the toll plaza, where the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus No.UP-23T-0434, which was proved by PW-2 Devmuni Thakur and the retired Investigating Officer of the criminal case Mahipal Singh PW-4. He further submitted that after investigation, a charge sheet has been submitted against the offending driver Mohd. Ajeem (DW-1), as such, there was sufficient evidence to prove that the accident was indeed caused by the offending bus No.UP-23T-0434. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and claimants-respondents, perused the impugned judgment and documents annexed with the appeal.

5. The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited vs. Rajani Sahoo and Others , (2025) 2 SCC 599 , has held as under:-

"8. As regards the reliability of charge-sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 819 : 2018 INSC 311, held in para 27, thus : (SCC p. 672)

“27. Another reason which weighed with the High Cour