Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Smt. Kali Devi (2026:Rj-Jd:9671) on 19 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9671]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2745/2025
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Manager Oic Ltd. Jodhpur,
Residency Road Jodhpur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kali Devi W/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 27
Years, (Wife) R/o Rawatsar, Tehsil And District Barmer
(Raj.)
2. Ms Seema D/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 7 Years,
Natural Guardian Res. No. 1, (Daughter) R/o Rawatsar,
Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
3. Ms Deepika D/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 4 Years,
Natural Guardian Res. No. 1, (Daughter) R/o Rawatsar,
Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
4. Master Manish S/o Late Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 3
Years, Natural Guardian Res. No. 1, (Son) R/o Rawatsar,
Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
5. Gomi W/o Bhagaram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Rawatsar,
Tehsil And District Barmer (Raj.)
6. Sbm Nirman Construction Co Pvt Ltd, Govindtola
Dhanupali, Sambalpur (Orissa) (Owner Od-15-W-5043)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Surana with Mrs. Shagun
Mathur & Ms. Aashima Choubey
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohan Lal Khatri with Mr. Gaurav
Ranka
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Judgment 19/02/2026
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the Judgment and Award dated 20.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer in M.A.C.T. Original Case No. 126/2024 (Kali Devi & Ors. vs. SBM (Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (2 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025] Nirmaan Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), whereby the claim petition has been partly allowed and compensation of ₹19,99,180/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been granted in favour of the respondents-claimants, fastening joint and several liability upon the appellant-non-claimant No. 2 and respondent No. 6-non-claimant No.1.
2. Briefly stated, the claimants, who are widow, minor children, and mother of deceased Tikuram, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of ₹1,32,11,000/- on account of his death in a motor accident dated 14.09.2023. It was averred that deceased, aged 29 years, was employed as a driver and was earning ₹20,000/- per month. On 14.09.2023 at about 2:00 PM, while Tikuram was driving truck No. RJ-04-GA-5626 on NH-53, a dumper bearing No. OD-15-W-5043, allegedly being driven rashly and at excessive speed, crossed the center line near Kharmanda Chowk and collided with his vehicle. Both vehicles sustained damage and Tikuram suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to HDH Kuchinda Hospital, where he was declared dead. An FIR was lodged at Jamankira Police Station under Sections 279 and 304A of I.P.C., in which the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against driver of the offending dumper.
3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as respondent No. 6-non-claimant, the owner/driver of the offending dumper. Non-claimant No. 1 contended that accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased Tikuram and not due to any fault of the dumper driver. In the alternative, it was submitted that as the dumper (Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (3 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025] was insured with non-claimant No. 2, the entire liability, if any, would rest upon the insurer.
4. The appellant-Insurance Company admitted the existence of a valid insurance policy covering the dumper but denied the other allegations. It asserted that accident resulted from the negligence of Tikuram and not from the dumper driver, and therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The insurer also sought exemption from liability on the ground of alleged breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
5. After framing the issues and adducing the evidence of the parties, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of ₹19,99,180/- with interest at 6% per annum, holding the appellant and respondent No. 6 jointly and severally liable. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant confines the arguments to the ground of contributory negligence and submits that tribunal erred in fastening entire liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company without properly appreciating the factual matrix. There was no independent eyewitness to the accident. The only witnesses examined, A.W. 1 Smt. Kali Devi (wife of deceased) and A.W. 2 - Hukam Dev Saran, admittedly were not present at the time of accident. Despite this, the Tribunal relied solely on claimants' witnesses without any independent corroboration, which is legally unsustainable.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (4 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]
8. Drawing attention of this Court towards Site Plan (Ex.8), learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in placing sole reliance upon the site plan, which was prepared 10 days after the accident and was not supported by any eyewitness or independent forensic evidence. It is contended that the police presented challan against both drivers, yet the Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 entirely against the appellant. It is argued that a site plan unsupported by direct evidence cannot be the sole basis for determining negligence.
9. It is further submitted that A.W. 1 - Smt. Kali Devi admitted in her cross-examination that after investigation, the police filed a challan against her deceased husband, Tikuram. However, the Tribunal failed to appreciate this crucial admission, which clearly indicates contributory fault on the part of the deceased.
10. Learned counsel further submits that present is a case of head-on collision, where principle of contributory negligence will apply. The site plan clearly indicate that truck in which deceased was travelling, encroached upon the opposite carriageway immediately prior to the collision. It is argued that in cases of head-on collision, the principle of contributory negligence must ordinarily be applied and liability apportioned accordingly.
11. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the following decisions :-
(i) Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta & ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3731-3732 of 2002) decided on 01.03.2006 (Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (5 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]
(ii) Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. vs. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. Reported in (AIR 2013 Supreme Court 2293)
(iii) United India Insurance Company vs. Lalita (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2314/2018)
(iv) Asuri and others vs. Chairman RSRTC and others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1197/2007) decided on 21.10.2019
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- claimants submits that a plain reading of the site plan clearly establishes that the dumper driver was driving rashly and negligently and, after entering the wrong side of the road, collided with the truck driven by the deceased, thereby causing the accident. It is, therefore, submitted that merely because the accident was a head-on collision, the principle of contributory negligence cannot be automatically invoked in the absence of cogent evidence to that effect. It is thus, contended that the tribunal, after careful and comprehensive appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, has rightly delivered the Judgment and Award dated 20.06.2025, granting just compensation and fastening joint and several liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. It is urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact based on proper assessment of the evidence and in accordance with the settled principles governing motor accident claims. It is therefore prayed that appeal of the appellant may be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (6 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025]
13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material available on record.
14. The principal question which arises for determination in the present appeal is whether the Tribunal committed any error in holding the driver of the offending dumper solely negligent and in fastening joint and several liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company and the owner of the dumper.
15. It is to be noted that proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal is required to assess negligence on the basis of overall probabilities emerging from the record.
16. The contention of the appellant that there was no independent eyewitness and therefore negligence was not proved, does not merit acceptance. It is not in dispute that an FIR was lodged immediately after the accident and during the course of investigation, site plan (Ex.8) was prepared. A perusal of the site plan reveals that accident in the present case occurred at place marked as "O" and the width of the road at the place of accident has been mentioned as 7.2 meters. Further, it reveals that at the time of accident, truck was at the place marked as "O" and was in its correct side of the road towards its own side of the center line, whereas, dumper while being driven at high speed and coming from the wrong direction, collided with the truck and thus, it appears that there cannot be any negligency on the part of the (Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (7 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025] truck's driver. The appellant did not examine the dumper driver to rebut the allegations of negligence nor did it produce any cogent contrary evidence.
17. As regards the argument that the site plan was prepared after ten days and cannot be relied upon, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not based its finding solely upon the site plan. Rather, the site plan has been read in conjunction with other evidence. Mere delay in preparation of the site plan, in absence of any material contradiction, does not render it unreliable.
18. The submission regarding filing of challan against the deceased also does not advance the case of the appellant. The findings in criminal proceedings are not conclusive in civil claim proceedings. The Tribunal has independently appreciated the evidence and returned a finding of negligence against the dumper driver.
19. Coming to the plea of contributory negligence, it is true that in certain cases of head-on collision, courts have apportioned liability where evidence indicated negligence on both sides. However, contributory negligence cannot be presumed merely because the accident was a head-on collision. It must be established on the basis of cogent material demonstrating fault on the part of the deceased.
20. In the present case, the material on record, particularly the site plan, indicates that the dumper had entered the wrong side of the road prior to the collision. No reliable evidence has been led by the appellant to show that the deceased encroached upon the opposite carriageway or contributed to the accident. In absence of (Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (8 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025] such evidence, the plea of contributory negligence remains a mere assertion.
21. Though, there is no conflict with the position of law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant but same are distinguishable on facts. In those cases, there was clear evidence indicating negligence on the part of both drivers or there existed substantial material creating doubt regarding exclusive negligence. In the present case, however, the site plan consistently attribute fault to the dumper driver, and no rebuttal evidence has been produced. Therefore, the ratio of the cited judgments does not apply to the facts of the present case.
22. This Court further finds that the appellant has admitted the existence of a valid insurance policy covering the offending dumper on the date of accident. No breach of policy conditions has been established by leading satisfactory evidence. In such circumstances, the fastening of joint and several liability upon the insurer along with the owner cannot be faulted.
23. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, neither any ground has been raised nor same has been shown to be excessive or contrary to settled principles. The compensation awarded appears to be just and reasonable.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality.
25. Therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) [2026:RJ-JD:9671] (9 of 9) [CMA-2745/2025] The impugned Judgment and Award dated 20.06.2025 passed by the tribunal is affirmed.
26. Stay petition and all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
27. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order along with the original record to the Tribunal forthwith.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 6-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 27/02/2026 at 11:42:51 AM) (Downloaded on 27/02/2026 at 09:27:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)