Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the
position that the question regarding negligence which is
essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle
accident claim should be considered based on the
evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police
records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of
the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into
such documents for the aforesaid purpose is
impermissible or inadmissible. {Para 9}
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 29302 of 2019)
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajani Sahoo & Ors.
Author: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Citation: 2025 INSC 6.
1. Leave granted.
2. The insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No.
OR-04-D-5675, held as the offending vehicle, filed the
captioned appeal against the judgment dated 07.02.2018
passed by the High Court of Orissa, at Cuttack in MACA
No.627 of 2016 dismissing the appeal filed against the
award dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Nayagarh, in MAC No.57 of 2009. The
claim petition was filed by the respondents herein
seeking compensation for the death of one Udayanath
Sahoo who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a
motor vehicle accident involving the motorcycle, being
driven by him and the vehicle insured with the appellant.
The aforesaid offending vehicle dashed against the rear
side of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased
Udayanath Sahoo when he was going to Bahadajhola at
about 01.10 pm on 27.04.2019. Consequent to the hit, the
motorcycle dashed against a tree standing by the road
and Udayanath Sahoo succumbed to the injuries
sustained and the pillion got severely injured. In
connection with the accident, FIR No.61/2009 was
registered at Police Station Sarankul. The legal heirs of
deceased Udayanath Sahoo, the respondents herein
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act) claiming
compensation of ₹ 10,50,000/-. The appellant was the
second respondent therein. On appreciating the
evidence consisting both oral and documentary, the
Tribunal passed an award for ₹ 6,77,164/- along with the
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the actual payment.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the
Tribunal contending that the accident had occurred
solely on account of the rash and negligent driving on the
part of the deceased and not at all due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the truck, which was
insured with the appellant and further that the Tribunal
had erred in relying on the FIR and the other records, the
appeal bearing No. MACA No.627/2016 was filed by the
appellant herein, which was dismissed by the High Court
as per the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. For understanding the case of the appellant, it is
only appropriate to refer to the operative portion of the
impugned judgment which reads thus:-
“On a perusal of the impugned award it is
seen that the learned Tribunal has taken into
consideration the evidence available on
record, both oral and documentary,
including the police papers such as, F.I.R.
(Exts. 1 and 2), Final Form (Ext. 3) and the
evidence of eye-witness (P.W. 2), in coming
to hold that the driver of the offending truck
no. OR-04-D/5675 was rash and negligent in
causing the accident, which resulted in the
death of Udayanath Sahoo, the rider of the
motorcycle.
There is no dispute that in the Final Form
submitted by the police after investigation,
the accused driver of the offending Truck has
been found to be guilty of rash and negligent
driving, which resulted in the death of
Udayanath Sahoo, the rider of the
motorcycle no. OR-205/2229. Therefore, the
impugned findings of the learned Tribunal
cannot be faulted.”
6. The core contention of the appellant is that the
Tribunal as also the High Court relied on the fraudulent
chargesheet prepared by the respondents in connivance
with the police. In short, the contention of the appellant
is that the High Court erred in relying on the chargesheet
to arrive at the conclusion that the accident in question in
which Udayanath Sahoo lost his life had occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with
the appellant. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not
file any counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing
for them would submit that there is absolutely no
illegality in relying on such documents consisting of FIR
and the final report prepared in relation to the accident
in question by the police, for the purpose of considering
the question of negligence in a motor vehicle accident
case. That apart, it is contended that the appellant
despite attributing connivance of the respondents with
the police, the appellant failed to prove the same. In
short, it is submitted that the appeal is devoid of merit
and the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. As regards the reliability of charge sheet and other
documents collected by the police during the
investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in the
case of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Ors.1
, held in paragraph No.27, thus : -
“27. Another reason which weighed with the
High Court to interfere in the first appeal
filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of
finding by the Tribunal about the factum of
negligence of the driver of the subject jeep.
Factually, this view is untenable. Our
understanding of the analysis done by the
Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701
was driven rashly and negligently by
Respondent 2 when it collided with the
motorcycle of the appellant leading to the
accident. This can be discerned from the
evidence of witnesses and the contents of the
charge-sheet filed by the police, naming
Respondent 2. This Court in a recent
decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina
Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10
SCC 646, noted that the key of negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle
as set up by the claimants was required to be
decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability and certainly
not by standard of proof beyond reasonable
1 (2018) 5 SCC 656; 2018 INSC 311
SLP (C) No. 29302 of 2019 Page 6 of 8
doubt. Suffice it to observe that the
exposition in the judgments already
adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet
against Respondent 2 prima facie points
towards his complicity in driving the vehicle
negligently and rashly. Further, even when
the accused were to be acquitted in the
criminal case, this Court opined that the
same may be of no effect on the assessment
of the liability required in respect of motor
accident cases by the Tribunal”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral
and documentary evidence including the FIR, final
report and such other documents prepared by the police
in connection with the accident in question. The Tribunal
had also taken note of the fact that based on the final
report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and
found guilty for rash and negligent driving. The High
Court took note of such aspects and found no illegality in
the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and
consequently dismissed the appeal. In the contextual
situation it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court
in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi & Anr. (2023) 13 SCC 510; 2023 INSC 621, this
Court held thus:-
“12….A holistic view of the evidence has to be
taken into consideration by the Tribunal and
strict proof of an accident caused by a
particular vehicle in a particular manner need
not be established by the claimants. The
claimants have to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. The standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt cannot be applied while
considering the petition seeking
compensation on account of death or injury in
a road traffic accident. To the same effect is
the observation made by this Court in Dulcina
Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10
SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid
judgment in Bimla Devi.”
9. Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the
position that the question regarding negligence which is
essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle
accident claim should be considered based on the
evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police
records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of
the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into
such documents for the aforesaid purpose is
impermissible or inadmissible.
10. It is also a fact that the appellant had attributed that
the respondent claimants connived with police and
fraudulently prepared the chargesheet. The contention
is that the vehicle insured with the appellant was not
involved in the accident and the accident had occurred
solely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the
deceased. But the evidence on record would reveal that
pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognizance was
taken for rash and negligent driving which resulted in
the death of Udayanath Sahoo.
11. In view of the aforementioned circumstances and
taking note of the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and
the High Court, we do not find any perversity in the
impugned judgment warranting interference by this
Court. Resultantly, the appeal must fail and consequently
it is dismissed.
……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)
……………………, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
January 02, 2025.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment