HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2381 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant in Court today is taken on record. 2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of the offending Tractor No. UP-77-AH-3279 against the impugned judgment and award dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in MACP No. 331 of 2022, Smt. Komal Devi and others Vs. Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. And others, whereby, for the untimely death of Manohar Singh in a motor accident which occurred on 11.09.2022, in Claim Petition filed under Section 163-A/164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which was ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The factual matrix is that on 11.09.2022 when Manohar Singh was going on foot then the offending vehicle Sonalika Tractor No. UP-77AH/3279 came from behind, in front of said tractor suddenly an animal came, in order to save that animal the tractor driver lost control of the tractor, which hit Manohar Singh and thereafter over turned Manohar Singh was crushed under the tractor and died on the spot. At the time of accident he was aged 32 years, was working as labourer and earning Rs.3300/- per month. The tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimants. 4. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the perusal of the inquest report of the deceased, it is evident that the deceased was himself driving the offending tractor and subsequently a false claim was set up by the claimants that the deceased was walking when Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd .....Appellant(s) Smt. Komal Devi And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) it was hit by the tractor. Learned counsel submitted that from the inquest report the recitals of the claim petition are falsified but the tribunal has not considered this aspect and has concluded that the accident occurred when Manohar Singh was walking. Learned counsel further submitted that in the newspaper also, it is disclosed that the accident occurred when deceased was himself driving the offending tractor. Learned counsel submitted that since the deceased was driving the offending tractor himself, as such, in claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the owner for his own negligence, who was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, but this fact also was not considered by the tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and perused the impugned judgment and the documents appended with the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has fairly accepted that besides the inquest report of the deceased and newspaper report, there is no evidence to substantiate the fact that the deceased was driving the offending tractor himself at the time of the alleged accident. It is well settled that the inquest report is not a substantive piece of evidence, on the basis of which, it cannot be presumed that a particular accident occurred in that particular manner. 7. Even otherwise from the perusal of the inquest report, it is not evident that the deceased was driving the offending tractor himself but it simply mention that the deceased was going with the tractor for refueling. It does not specifically mentions that the deceased was driving it, as such, from its perusal, it is not evident that the deceased was driving the offending tractor on the date of incident. 8. It is also well settled that the newspaper reports are hearsay evidence and on the basis of which no inference can be drawn. 9. To the contrary, the claimants have examined, eyewitness Harnam Singh as P.W.2, who has proved the accident. It is apparent that in a claim petition under Section 163-A/164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants are not required to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending tractor. 10. Besides, the above oral evidence the claimants have also informed the incident to the police, which was duly recorded in the G.D. No.43 on 17.09.2022 at 13.08 hours at the police station Mangalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, which discloses that on 11.09.2022 at about 9.00 AM when Manohar FAFO No. 2381 of 2025 2 Singh was walking on the left side of the road then the offending tractor U.P.-77AH/3279 came from behind and in order to save an animal, the tractor driver lost control of the tractor, which hit Manohar Singh and thereafter, over turned, due to which, Manohar Singh died on the spot, being crushed under the tractor. 11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, there is no evidence to presume that either Manohar Singh was driving the offending tractor or was travelling on it as labourer on the date of the accident, as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and is liable to be rejected. No other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. 13. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. 14. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 18.06.2025 is affirmed. 15. Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the appellant to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 28, 2025 Prajapati RK FAFO No. 2381 of 2025 3 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad