HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2442 of 2025 Court No. - 38 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the insurer of Motorcycle No.UP-16-BK-2437 against the impugned judgment and award dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bulandshahar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 22 of 2018 (Smt. Seema Devi and others vs. Shiv Om and others), whereby, for the untimely death of Omdutt in a motor accident, which occurred on 21.10.2017, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimants, in a petition filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Factual matrix is that on 21.10.2017, Omdutt was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle No. UP-16-BK-2437, which was being driven by Shiv Kumar, then suddenly the motorcycle became dis- balanced and slipped causing serious injuries to Omdutt, who died on the spot. Regarding the above accident, an information was given to the concerned Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar, where a GD Entry No.38 on 21.10.2017 at 22:20 hours was recorded. At the time of the accident, Omdutt was aged about 32 years, who was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. The Tribunal concluded that the above motorcycle was comprehensively insured with the appellant, opined that since the petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988, as such, the income of the deceased cannot be taken in Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .....Appellant(s) Smt. Seema Devi And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) excess of Rs.40,000/- annually. In view of the above, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the claimants. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal. In the above factual matrix, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company submitted that in the GD registered at Police Station Anoopshahar on 21.10.2017, it is mentioned that the deceased was driving the above motorcycle himself, as such, for his own negligence, no compensation can be awarded to the claimants. Learned counsel submitted that keeping in view the above GD entry, the testimony of alleged eye witness PW2-Rajendra Singh is doubtful. Learned counsel submitted that from the GD entry and evidence of PW2, it is proved that the deceased was himself driving the above motorcycle, as such, the deceased stepped into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle, and as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation for the own negligence of the owner of the motorcycle. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted and decided on merits. I have heard the learned counsel of the appellant-Insurance Company, perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal. The appellant has annexed with the appeal, the copy of the G.D. entry No. 38 dated 21.10.2017, time 22:20 hours, which only mentions that Omdutt was travelling on the above motorcycle, which slipped causing grievous injuries to him, who died on the spot. Nowhere in the GD entry, it is mentioned that the deceased was driving the above motorcycle himself. The claimants examined the widow of the deceased, Seema Devi as PW-1 and eye witness, Rajendra Singh as PW-2. PW-1, Seema Devi very fairly accepted that she was not an eye witness of the alleged accident. PW2 deposed that at the time of the accident, Shiv Kumar FAFO No. 2442 of 2025 2 was driving Motorcycle No.UP-16-BK-2437, on which Omdutt was travelling as pillion rider, which suddenly slipped on the road, causing grievous injuries to Omdutt, who died on the way to the hospital. It is further evident that the matter was investigated after the registration of the above GD and the Investigating Officer has recorded a finding that on 21.10.2017, at about 6:00 P.M, Omdutt died in an accident involving Motorcycle No.UP-16-BK-2437, which was driven by Shivom. It is pertinent to mention here that the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove that the above motorcycle was being driven at the time of the accident by the deceased himself and has merely relied on the above GD and testimony of PW-2 to prove that the deceased was himself driving the above motorcycle. It is apparent that neither in the above GD nor in the testimony of PW-2, it is mentioned that the deceased was driving the above motorcycle, so as to enable the Insurance Company to avoid its statutory liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has not disputed that the motorcycle was comprehensively insured on the date of the accident, as such, Omdutt, being the pillion rider was duly insured by the Insurance Company, and as such, the claimants being the legal representatives of the deceased, are entitled to get compensation from the Insurance Company. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Tribunal has not erred in concluding that the deceased was travelling as pillion rider on the above motorcycle and fastening the liability to pay compensation on the appellant-Insurance Company, being the insurer of that motorcycle. Accordingly, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. The appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. The impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 11.07.2025 is affirmed. FAFO No. 2442 of 2025 3 Office is directed to remit back the statutory deposit made by the Insurance Company to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. October 17, 2025 Mayank FAFO No. 2442 of 2025 4 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad