Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41411 Court No. - 8 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 117 of 2022 Appellant :- Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Ltd. Lko. Thru. Manager Respondent :- Yamuna Prasad Srivastav And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Shraddha Tripathi,Ankit Singh,Suchita Tripathi,Vineet Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the appellant as well as Ms. Suchita Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2. With the consent of the parties, since, the appeal is ripe for hearing hence, it has been heard and is being decided by this judgment. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of an award dated 02.08.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a Claim Petition no.422 of 2018 whereby in a death case, a sum of Rs.4,02,000/- along with 6% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimant/ respondents. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, certain brief facts giving rise in this appeal is to be noticed hereinafter. On the fateful day of 26.02.2018 at around 1.00 p.m. the deceased Ram Rani was travelling along with her husband on motorcycle bearing no.U.P.-41-R-5717 on the Haidargarh Bachhrawa road, a tractor bearing no.UP-44/AR-6218 was being driven rashly and negligently and it hit the motorcycle from behind, as a result, the motorcycle got disbalanced and it fell, which resulted in grievous injuries to both Ram Rani and her husband Yamuna Prasad. On account of the injuries sustained by Ram Rani she succumbed to her injuries during her treatment. In this context, an FIR bearing no.64 of 2018 under Sections 279, 338, 304A I.P.C was also lodged. On account of the aforesaid accident the legal heirs of Ram Rani namely her husband Yamuna Prasad and two sons Anurag and Rahul, jointly filed a claim petition before the M.A.C.T under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act which came to be registered as Claim Petition no.422 of 2018 by M.A.C.T Barabanki. The claim petition came to be contested by Devi Bux Singh who was the owner of the tractor and Indrajeet, the driver of the said tractor. It was stated by them that their tractor was duly insured by Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Co Ltd and the driver also had the requisite and valid licence. However, they denied the occurrence and further stated that Indrajeet was a proficient driver and the accident did not occur on account of his negligence. The Insurance Company also filed their separate written statement and raised general defences to the effect that unless and until, it is proved that the tractor was being driven in accordance with the policy condition, till then the award cannot be saddled on the Insurance Company. Upon the exchange of pleadings, the tribunal framed six issues. Significantly, the respondent no.1 appeared in the witness box and his son Rahul Srivastava was examined as the other witness and they deposed that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor. Considering their testimony, the tribunal came to the conclusion that it was the tractor who was responsible for the accident and it also found that the tractor was duly insured and its driver had a valid subsisting licence, accordingly, it awarded a sum of Rs.4,02,000/- along with 6% interest by means of award dated 02.08.2021 which is under challenge in this appeal. Sri Dinesh Kumar learned counsel for the appellant has urged that it is a case where the tractor bearing no.UP-44/AR-6218 has been planted. In order to buttress his submissions, it has been pointed out that the accident occurred on 26.02.2018. On the very same day, the FIR was lodged wherein the FIR did not indicate any number of the tractor nor the name of its owner was mentioned and the FIR was against unknown. It is further pointed out that later the Investigating Officer of the police sought information from the R.T.O department stating that in pursuance of an FIR which was lodged bearing no.64 of 2018, a tractor Mahindra 265-DI which had no registration number however, its chassis no.RAR-19927 ,belonged to whom. It is stated that in response the R.T.O informed the police authorities that tractor with the aforesaid chassis number bears registration no.U.P-41/L-3194 and is registered in the name of Krishna Bahadur and Smt Tarawati. The contention is that it is only when the aforesaid information was received by the police, the claimants while filing the claim petition included the tractor no.UP-44/AR-6218. It is, thus, urged that the investigation was made in respect of different tractor belonging to Krishna Bahadur and Smt. Tarawati while the claim petition proceeded on a different premise relating to a different tractor which was in the name of Devi Bux Singh, thus, it is urged that it was a clear case where after the accident from a different vehicle was planted. It is also urged that the same tractor was also involved in another accident which was a subject matter of SIT investigation and apparently it is a clear case where the vehicle which is insured with the appellant has been planted, consequently, the appeal be allowed after setting aside the award as far as it relates to the appellant and if at all required the award can be made good by the owner. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent have refuted the aforesaid submissions and has urged that the FIR was lodged promptly and what is the nature of the investigation has not been contested by either the owner or the insurer before the tribunal and these plea have been raised for the first time in this appeal without there being any corroborative evidence, accordingly, the same may not be taken note of by the Court as well as the amount granted in a petition under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act does not require any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered rival submissions and also perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be noticed that the entire crux of the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no basis for the reason that they contested the proceedings before the claims tribunal and no such plea was taken in the written statement either by the owner or the insurer. It will be significant to note that the owner/driver had filed a joint written statement wherein they had generally denied the accident but did not lead any evidence i.e.to say that they did not enter into witness box to substantiate the plea raised in the written statement. Similar is the situation with the Insurance Company who also had raised general defences in the written statement without raising any specific plea. It will also be relevant to point out that a mere denial of the factum of the accident in the written statement does not partake the nature of proof. Unless and until a plea raised in the written statement is established by leading evidence, it remains an inert plea and cannot be said to have been proved. Learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that the entire pleadings regarding planting of the tractor as canvassed before this Court was not part of the pleadings. Moreover, neither the owner nor the driver entered into the witness box nor the Insurance Company led any evidence. A feeble plea was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that before the tribunal they had moved an application bearing paper no.Ga/17 requiring the Court to summon Indrajeet Singh to depose as he would have been the best person to shed light on the aforesaid aspect. It is urged that the said application came to be rejected by the Tribunal by means of the order dated 30.09.2019 and in this regard a specific ground has also being raised by the appellant in this memo of appeal. Noticing the aforesaid submission suffice to say that it does not merit consideration for the reason that for whatever reason if the appellants found that they could not contest the proceedings appropriately and adequately before the tribunal, they had ample opportunity to bring in evidence in support of their plea by filing the instant appeal which is of the year, 2022. There is no application filed by the Insurance Company purporting to be under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C to bring on any additional evidence. In absence of any such application and evidence mere submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be appreciated. If the appellant could annex certain documents which are photocopies along with the affidavit in support of their application for interim relief the same cannot be taken note of as part of substantive evidence. It could have been done if an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C would have been filed and the reason adequately explained so that any ground as provided in the aforesaid provision is met. Admittedly, no such effort or application has been moved,, hence, mere photocopies cannot be taken note of by this Court. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any palpable error committed by the Tribunal while considering the case. Another important fact is that admittedly in the accident, Smt. Ram Rani was the pillion rider and was travelling on motorcycle with her husband. In the accident unfortunately Smt. Ram Rani expired but her husband had sustained injuries, who was also not only a victim but also an eye witness and he entered into the witness box and gave testimony which could not be shaken during his cross examination and it was found credible by the Tribunal. Once the claimant no.1 who was an eyewitness and a victim had deposed before the tribunal, it was open for the tractor owner and driver to have entered into the witness box but they abstained. In this view of the matter, the testimony of husband of the deceased Yamuna Prasad Srivastava remained uncontroverted. In so far as the negligence or the planting of the tractor is concerned, moreover, no such question was put to the witness while he was under cross examination before the tribunal ,hence, this Court, at this stage, merely on the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant is not keen to entertain such plea for the reasons recorded above. This Court is satisfied that the award made by the Tribunal, dated 02.08.2021 in proceedings under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, does not require any interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. The award dated 2.8.2021 passed in C.P. no.422 of 2018 is affirmed. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal concerned to be released in favour of the claimant respondents in accordance with the award with updated interest and any shortfall shall also be made good by the appellants within 60 days from today. The record of the tribunal be returned forthwith. With the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench