Important Judgments for appreciation of evidence which shows that claimant has filed false motor vehicle cases

 

1) Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in motor accident claim petition when false case is put forth by claimant?

Therefore, if he was an eye witness to the incident, why he did not inform the said fact and ask the police to incorporate the vehicle number of Tata Magic in the inquest panchnama itself, is also a question. Conveniently the claimants have kept him out of witness box, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, mere mention of Tata Magic in inquest panchnama will not be sufficient to hold that it was the Tata Magic belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 on the date of the accident.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 606 of 2019 and Civil Application No. 3025 of 2019 in FA/606/2019

Decided On: 24.09.2019

Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vanita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2654/2019.

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/05/bombay-hc-how-to-appreciate-evidence-in.html

Print Page

Delhi HC: Whether claimant is entitled to get compensation for motor accident if he has failed to prove that he had valid driving license at the time of accident?

The doctrine of Res ipsa loquitur, in the instant appeal, initially onus lies on the Claimant that he was permitted to drive the motorcycle to the place of the incident and thereafter he met with an accident on the negligent part of the truck driver. Once the claimant discharges the onus that he was driving the motorcycle on the road with a valid driving license, then only the question of negligence on part of the truck driver arise. In the instant case the deceased neither had a learner's driving license nor was having a valid driving license. At the most the deceased would have been permitted to ride the motorcycle in a closed territory and not on the public road. The claimant has not examined any evidence to prove that he was holding the driving license at the relevant point of time. Therefore, his act of driving motorcycle on the public road in middle of the night was on his own risk. The truck driver merely being a party to the accident per se does not make him liable, particularly when Claimants has not discharged their onus. The Claimant before seeking the relief has to prove that the deceased was holding a valid permit to drive at the time of the incident under Section 2(10) Motor Vehicles Act,1988. {Para 10}.

11. In absence of a valid permit to drive deceased should not have driven motorcycle on public road which automatically infers a definite threat to the general public. In the instant case, time of the accident is 3:15 AM when generally the roads are free from traffic, if a person drives on the public road without valid driving license, the inference drawn could only be of accident and such act would not attract tortuous liability. Reliance is placed on Surender Kumar Arora And Another v. Manoj Bisla And Others (2012) 4 SCC 552.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Mac. App. 954/2017 and C.M. Appl. 39162/2017

Decided On: 18.01.2019

Rehmani Begum and Ors. Vs. Krishan Pal

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

I.S. Mehta, J.

Citation: 2019:DHC:371, MANU/DE/5246/2019.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence of eye witness of accident in motor accident claim petition when said witness was relative of claimant?

Second witness of the claimant is Balasaheb Bongane CW-3. He states that he was proceeding on his motorcycle and witnessed the offending jeep dashed against motor cycle of the deceased Dattarao. He states that, he noted jeep number and informed claimant no.3-Shailesh regarding the incident. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is relative of the claimants. He states that he noted number of offending vehicle after getting a pen from the owner of sugar cane juice shop. He states that he did not felt necessary to accompany deceased to the Hospital or he never informed police chowki or doctor regarding the vehicle number or incident. He never visited the police or gave his statement to the police. The Certified copy of his statement recorded in S.C.C. No.457 of 2018 is also placed on record of the Tribunal at Exhibit 15, wherein he states that he came to know about vehicle number from the mob gathered at the spot of accident. If the aforesaid evidence is taken into account, it is difficult to believe that accident occurred in presence of CW-3. Pertinently, CW-1 admits in his cross-examination that vehicle owner bears surname Karhale as claimants and he is resident of the village which is at a distance of 30 kilometers from village of the claimants. He admits that he had received information as to owner of the vehicle, but never disclosed it to any one prior to filing of the complaint. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether motor accident claim tribunal should rely on evidence of witness who is declared hostile in criminal court relating to same accident?

Mr. Choudhary, submits that evidence of eye witness is absolutely unreliable. They are got up witnesses. Perusal of evidence of CW 2 Santosh shows that he runs sugarcane juice shop nearby the place of accident and claims himself to be an eye witness. However, during his cross- examination he admitted that he cannot read and write. There is no provision of electric light at the spot of accident. He did not disclose offending vehicle number to any one till police approached him. He cannot tell as to whether it was head on collision between two vehicles as he was at the distance. All these admissions coupled with fact that he turned hostile before the criminal court makes his statement unreliable.

{Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Print Page

Karnatka HC: How to ascertain that claimant has filed false motor accident claim petition?

One Satish was examined as P.W. 2 in support of the claim. He claimed to have witnessed the accident. He has stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the car referred to above. He had not given any complaint to the police. He did not take the injured persons to the hospital. Though he claimed to have given statement before the police, neither such statement was produced, nor the police were examined to prove it. In the charge sheet, he is not even named as a witness. This coupled with the other facts shows that he had not witnessed the accident. {Para 4}

5. In Ex. P3 (seizure mahazar) prepared by the police on 24.03.2008, it is stated that the bumper of the car was damaged. But in the motor vehicle Inspector's report (Ex. P5) which was also prepared on the same day i.e. on 24.03.2008, it is stated that there was no damage to the car. This shows that the police had fabricated the criminal case.

8. When involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident is disputed, it is for the claimants to place acceptable evidence to prove its involvement and to prove that the accident arose out of use of the insured vehicle. If the claim is based on fault, then negligent user of the vehicle also requires to be proved. 

9. Fraudulent claims are on the rise. Hence, it is necessary to state that, filing of complaint to the police, or filing of charge sheet by the police, by itself, is no proof of involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Delayed filing of complaint to the police by giving particulars of a vehicle stating that it is involved in the accident, or delayed noting of particulars of a vehicle in the police record is prima facie indicative of its false implication in the accident. In such cases, stricter scrutiny of the evidence is required. The evidence requires to be assessed with great care and caution. The main test is one of reliability.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7025/2011 (MV)

Decided On: 09.11.2015

Arathy and Ors. Vs. S.M. Umesha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

H.G. Ramesh, J.

Citation: 2015:KHC:32692, MANU/KA/4733/2015.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Under which circumstances the motor accident claim tribunal should recall the order of grant of compensation?

 It is significant to note that the complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 19.1.2007 whereas the claim petition was filed by the minor claimant represented through his mother, natural guardian. The mother of the claimant was examined as PW-1. Complainant, father of the claimant has not stepped into the witness box. The claim petition first bears the signature of the father of the claimant and the same is erased, subsequently instituted through the mother of the claimant. At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court on the issue on hand. In the case of United India Insurance co. ltd. v. Rajendra Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that fraud and justice cannot dwell together, it is unrealistic to expect the insurer to resist claim on the basis of fraud at earlier instance without knowledge about fraud. If order is not recalled even after noticing fraud, it leads to serious miscarriage of justice. The Insurance company when it comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation after the award has already been passed, no court or Tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim.

{Para 8}

9. In Rajendra Singh v. Vinitha Yadav (supra), it is held that the claimants have not been able to explain the statements which were given by them before the Delhi police on the very day on which they received the injuries, wherein they said that the injuries were caused due to accident of the tractor on which they were travelling. However, the testimony of the claimants and their witnesses established that the accident took place with an ambassador car. In that context, it is held that the claim set up by the claimants was an absolutely false case and they were not entitled to any compensation. This was a case where the version of the claimants saw the light of the day for the first time, 32 days after the alleged accident when the FIR was lodged.

10. In the case of S.P. Changalavaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath reported in MANU/SC/0192/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 853, it is observed that "fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. A Judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law is the settled proposition of law, such a judgment/decree can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.

11. It is settled legal position that fraud and collusion vitiates even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beaslay observed at Queens Bench pages 712-713 All England Report page 345-C-D) "No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

M.F.A. No. 2162/2011 [MV]

Decided On: 24.10.2016

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shoukath and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Sujatha, J.

Citation: 2017 ACJ 1840 karnataka HC, MANU/KA/2671/2016.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: Under which circumstances non examination of material witness is fatal to motor accident claim petition?

 In order to answer this point, it is axiomatic to refer to the factual matrix of the case as available on record. In this context, Ex. R1 plays a pivotal role. Ex. R1 is the register extract maintained by R.L. Jalappa hospital where the claimant was taken treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to the alleged accident. This Ex. R1 clearly establishes the history of injuries sustained by the claimant. Scanning through this document, it can be viewed that one Chand Pasha, the uncle of the claimant, accompanied him to the hospital on the fateful day i.e. 18.10.2006, the history of injuries as gathered from the uncle of the minor claimant/patient reveals that the patient along with his uncle was travelling in a goods auto rikshaw which toppled and the minor sustained injuries. LTM of minor boy was taken as the identification mark and the statements of the uncle of the minor were recorded with his signature. In other words, Ex. R1 bears the signature of Pasha. This crucial witness was not examined by the claimant to discern the truth. It would be inferred that the claimant is suppressing the material facts, particularly, when the specific defence was taken by the appellant/insurer as regards the claimant travelling as a gratuitous passenger. {Para 6}

7. It is an admitted fact that the accident occurred on 18.10.2006 and the complaint was lodged by the father of the claimant on 19.1.2007. It is trite law that no claim can be rejected merely on the ground of delay unless satisfactory explanation is offered for the delay caused in filing the complaint. As could be seen from Ex. P2, certified copy of complaint, it is stated that the complainant delayed filing of complaint due to the assurance given by the elders of the village to settle the dispute but the same is not substantiated by examining any witness on this aspect. Ex. R1 speaks that the claimant, minor boy was travelling in the goods auto accompanied with his uncle, whereas complaint Ex. P2 discloses that the minor boy was standing along with his father at the bus-stop. These inconsistencies are not satisfactorily explained by the claimants. It remains a jumble of facts, unresolved.

13. Considering the aforesaid principles of law and background of facts, it is manifestly clear that it is a case of dubious concoction having made with sinister object of extracting the claim as the claimant if found to be travelling as a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle, was not entitled to compensation for breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The long time gap between the occurrence of the accident and the filing of the complaint would be the reason for ingeniously designing a device to make a claim for which the claimant was not legally entitled to.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

M.F.A. No. 2162/2011 [MV]

Decided On: 24.10.2016

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shoukath and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Sujatha, J.

Citation: 2017 ACJ 1840 karnataka HC, MANU/KA/2671/2016.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What will be effect of non examination of investigating officer by claimant in motor accident claim petition?

The claimants are also relying on statement

of   respondent   no.01   dated   10­07­2014   recorded   by

police.     The   said   statement   appears   to   be   part   of

charge­sheet   of   which   certified   copy   had   been

produced.     The   said   statement   has   been   taken   as

statement of the accused and therefore, for criminal

case,   it   may   not   be   admissible   in   evidence.     As

regards   civil   case   is   concerned,   no   doubt,   the

question   arises   as   to   whether   in   absence   of

examination   of   the   person   who   had   recorded   it,

whether it can be read in evidence, that too, without

deciding whether certified copy of such statement can

be   read   in   evidence.     It   appears   that   from   this

angle, submissions were not made before the Tribunal.

Even if for the sake of arguments, we take the said

statement   as   it   is,   in   which   it   was   stated   by

respondent   no.01,   that   due   to   the   dash   of   his

motorcycle   to   the   motorcycle   driven   by   deceased,

deceased   as   well   as   his   pillion   rider   fell   down;

statement   is   made   that   after   they   had   sustained

injuries,   he   immediately   asked   Ratnakar   and   Ganesh,

as to what is their name and then came to know about

their names and then he had called some other persons

and made arrangements for medical help.   That means,

he   intended  to   say  that  Ratnakar   as  well   as  Ganesh

were   conscious   when   he   made   enquiries   with   them.

This is contrary to what has been stated in the FIR.

In the FIR, it is stated that after they fell down

from the motorcycle after the dash, they had raised

hue and cry; however, motorcycle rider did not stop

and   fled   away.     Under   such   circumstance,   how   the

claimants can rely on his statement, is a question,

rather   it   gives   an   example   as   to   how   the   vehicle

belonging   to   respondent   no.02   has   been   involved   in

the case.   Ultimately, respondent no.01 says that he

will not be able to say how the accident took place

and   who   was   at   fault.     Therefore,   the   alleged

connection   between   the   medical   examination   of

respondent   no.01   and   the   accidental   injuries   caused

due   to   the   accident,   cannot   be   said   to   have   been

established   merely   by   producing   the   injury

certificate as well as statement of respondent no.01

taken by police.   The police head ­constable who had

taken   his   statement,   has   not   been   examined   by   the

claimants for the reasons best known to them. {Para 11}

12. The charge­sheet also contains statement of

respondent no.02 which is alleged to have been taken

on   07­-07­-2014,   who   has   echoed   thereafter   with

claimant   no.03   Ganesh   and   then   has   stated   that

respondent   no.01   had   carried   out   repairs   to   his

motorcycle   and   then   handed   it   over   to   respondent

no.02.   Again, at the cost of repetition, it can be

said that without examining the said police constable

who had recorded statement of respondent no.02, his

statement   cannot   be   considered.     This   is   with   the

fact,   that   in   their   written   statement,   respondents

no.01 and 02 have clearly denied involvement of the

motorcycle   bearing   no.   MH­17/AY­9996   in   the   said

accident. 

13. Again,   coming   to   the   point   regarding   delay

in lodging the FIR, it can be seen that the fact of

death   of   Ratnakar   was   informed   to   police   and

thereafter enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was conducted wherein the inquest

panchanama was carried out and then the dead body was

sent for post mortem.  Important point to be noted is

that when on that day i.e. on the day when inquest

panchanama  was prepared, there was an opportunity to

the  claimants  or  on  behalf   of  them,  FIR  could  have

been   lodged   against   unknown   vehicle.     Same   has   not

been  done.    Whatever   FIR  has   been  lodged   on  23­-04­-

2014,   is   also   against   unknown   person.     Therefore,

this   clear   delay   in   lodging   the   FIR   and   then   not

examining the police constable who had recorded the

statements   of   respondents   no.01   and   02   or   the

Investigation   Officer,   is   required   to   be   viewed

against the claimants.  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

  AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.    

First Appeal No. 0186 of 2019     

Kavita Ratnakar Ghodke, Vs   Sandip Sarjerao Jadhav,

 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

  DATE  : 15TH JULY 2019.

Read full judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Bombay HC: What will be effect of delay in lodging of police report in motor accident claim petition?

 Again,   coming   to   the   point   regarding   delay

in lodging the FIR, it can be seen that the fact of

death   of   Ratnakar   was   informed   to   police   and

thereafter enquiry under Section 174 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was conducted wherein the inquest

panchanama was carried out and then the dead body was

sent for post mortem.  Important point to be noted is

that when on that day i.e. on the day when inquest

panchanama  was prepared, there was an opportunity to

the  claimants  or  on  behalf   of  them,  FIR  could  have

been   lodged   against   unknown   vehicle.     Same   has   not

been  done.    Whatever   FIR  has   been  lodged   on  23­-04­-

2014,   is   also   against   unknown   person.     Therefore,

this   clear   delay   in   lodging   the   FIR   and   then   not

examining the police constable who had recorded the

statements   of   respondents   no.01   and   02   or   the

Investigation   Officer,   is   required   to   be   viewed

against the claimants.  {Para 13}

14. No   doubt,   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1988,   is   a

beneficial   legislation;   but   then   liberal

interpretations   and   benefit   can   be   given   when   the

accident   is   proved.     When   accident   itself   is   not

proved, though the burden was on the claimants; then

question   of   liberal   interpretation   does   not   arise.

The   point   no.   I   is,   therefore,   answered   in   the

negative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

  AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.    

First Appeal No. 0186 of 2019     

Kavita Ratnakar Ghodke, Vs   Sandip Sarjerao Jadhav,

 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

  DATE  : 15TH JULY 2019.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in motor accident case when police report was lodged against unknown vehicle?

 The burden of proof is on the claimants. Same may be discharged on preponderance of probabilities. The insurer may lead independent evidence in disproof of the claim or it may point out that the evidence relied on is inherently improbable and the Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have acted on it. {Para 14}

15. The Tribunal, in the present case, has simply relied on the factum of filing of charge sheet against the tractor driver. Admittedly, the report of the accident was lodged against unknown vehicle. It is only after three weeks a person comes forward claiming to have had witnessed the accident. He recalled of the accident only on having seen the hoarding depicting the picture of the deceased - Sandip. According to the alleged eye witness, some person had gathered on the spot of accident. Had it really been so, involvement of the offending tractor could have come to light immediately, i.e., on the same day of the accident. Same suggests that no person had witnessed the accident. The conduct of the alleged eye witness - Atul Gade in coming forward after three weeks of the accident, is unnatural and does not stand to reason. He was residing at a nearby village. On having seen such an accident, he left the place without intimating the same to anyone else. Realising to have had witnessed the accident only on having seen the hoarding and picture of the deceased, leads this Court to observe that this person is a got up witness only with a view to earn the compensation. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to rely on the evidence of this witness.

16. There is no other evidence in proof of involvement of the tractor in question. The Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim petition merely relying on such police papers namely, charge-sheet, seen of accident panchnama and post mortem notes. This Court has, therefore, every reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. In view of this Court, the evidence fell short to make out case even on preponderance of probabilities.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1342 of 2021

Decided On: 31.01.2022

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tilottam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Avachat, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1303/2022.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in motor accident claim petition when false case is put forth by claimant?

As regards the fact of accident is concerned, the initial burden is always on the claimant/ claimants to prove the same, which includes not only the involvement of the vehicle but also the manner in which the accident had taken place, as pleaded in the petition. All those authorities, which have been relied by the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, have reiterated the basic principle as aforesaid i.e. the burden is on the claimants to prove the accident including the involvement of the vehicle/vehicles. In First Appeal No. 2742 of 2015 (supra) note has been taken of the decision of Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 32 of 2013 decided on 11.07.2013 (Goa Bench), wherein it was held that mere production of police papers and exhibiting those documents does not dispense the proof of contents of those documents. It was also held that merely on the basis of certified copies of First Information Report, Spot Panchnama and other documents the claimants cannot prove their case. Therefore, it is now required to be seen, as to whether the evidence adduced in this case fulfills the criteria.

12. The First Information Report has been admittedly lodged belatedly. At this stage itself, note can be taken regarding the ratio in Ravi v/s. Badrinarayan and others reporting in MANU/SC/0133/2011 : (2011) 4 SCC 693 that delay in lodging the FIR, cannot be taken as a main ground for rejecting the claim petition. Here not only the point of delay has been canvassed but it is coupled with non-involvement and collusion. Therefore, facts and evidence is required to be scanned taking into consideration these aspects. Informant Balaji is the brother of deceased and in the First Information Report, which has been lodged after 25 days of accident (on 21.06.2011), number of Tata Magic has been given and then it is stated that when he came to know about the accident, he went to hospital, where Dhanaji was admitted. He had come to know that two persons from his village viz. Laxman Uttam Kamble and Mahesh Rangnath Deshmukh had admitted Dhanaji to hospital regarding details of accident. It appears that Dhanaji was unconscious on that day but on the next day i.e. on 28.05.2011 he expired at about 1.00 p.m.. It also appears from the contents of the First Information Report that the police were calling Balaji, since the date of post mortem and inquest panchnama, to lodge First Information Report but Balaji had not gone to Police Station. He has tried to explain that, since he was in grief and his mental condition was not proper, inspite of messages given he could not lodge the report. The claimants have not examined Balaji for the reasons best known to them. No doubt, he was not eye witness but then he could have thrown light as to why he had lodged the First Information Report belatedly and no other person could have lodged the report at any earlier point of time. Interesting point to be noted is that the inquest panchnama was executed on 28.05.2011 when Balaji was present. The inquest panchnama Exh.32 only makes a statement that motorcycle driven by Dhanaji was dashed by Tata Magic. Why First Information Report was not taken down at that point itself is a question. It will not be out of place to mention another interesting fact that claimants have examined CW 2 Dipak Lokhande, whose name is not appearing in inquest panchnama or in the spot panchnama or even in First Information Report, but then he say that he had seen the accident. So also, he says that the accident was witnessed by Laxman Kamble and Mahesh Deshmukh from his village. Now said Mahesh Deshmukh is, in fact, panch to the inquest panchnama. Therefore, if he was an eye witness to the incident, why he did not inform the said fact and ask the police to incorporate the vehicle number of Tata Magic in the inquest panchnama itself, is also a question. Conveniently the claimants have kept him out of witness box, for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, mere mention of Tata Magic in inquest panchnama will not be sufficient to hold that it was the Tata Magic belonging to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 on the date of the accident.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 606 of 2019 and Civil Application No. 3025 of 2019 in FA/606/2019

Decided On: 24.09.2019

Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Vanita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2654/2019.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Motor accident claim tribunal should reject claim for compensation?

Significantly, no post-mortem was conducted. The High Court also noticed the fact that though the accident took place on 12 January 1995, a complaint was lodged only on 15 February 1995. As regards the evidence of the driver, the High Court noted that while at one stage he had stated that the deceased was brought dead, at another place he stated that he was referred to the government hospital for further treatment. The circumstance that no postmortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect of the case which in our view has justifiably weighed with the High Court. Moreover, the High Court found that if there were three passengers in the tractor, all of whom had known that driver Dharampal had by his negligent act run over Ram Kanwar, the most natural conduct would have been to lodge a complaint. The person who died was the brother of the owner of the tractor. Hence, the fact that a complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case. The High Court has also noticed that there were no hospital records to indicate, from the nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature alleged. The deceased was conducting a transport business with his brother and was an income tax Assessee. The fact that proper medical records were not available has, in this background, weighed with the High Court. Besides the above aspects, the High Court has found that the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal is perverse.

4. On a careful analysis of the judgment of the High Court and the material on the record, we find no reason to take a view at variance with that of the High Court. The reasoning contained in the award of the Tribunal was perfunctory. The Tribunal failed to notice crucial aspects of the case which have a bearing on the question as to whether the death of Ram Kanwar was caused as a result of the accident caused by the tractor. Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set up to support a claim for compensation. The Appellants have not been able to displace the careful analysis of the evidence by the High Court and the findings which have been arrived at.

False case was set up  supporting compensation claim - No F.I.R. - No postmortem deceased brother of owner - F.I.R. delayed by 30 days (Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 3291-3292 of 2011

Decided On: 19.01.2018

Anil and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0022/2018,AIR 2018 SC 612.

Print Page