Delhi HC: Under which circumstances, police papers can not treated as gospel truth in motor accident claim petition

It is well settled law that while deciding MACT cases statement in FIR is not a gospel truth and onus of proving the defence is upon the person who takes the defence and not upon the others. No evidence has been led on this point by the insurance company. It is suggested in the positive manner that they were travelling with their belongings and tools. {Para 26}.

27 Ld counsel for insurance company Sh. Sujit Jaiswal, Adv. said that they were relying on the DAR report, however, they have not settled the matter on this count and evidence has been led and they have been allowed to cross examine even the eye witness on the point of negligence on the point of avoidance of liability. Hence insurance company is only to substantiate its defence either through cross examination of eye witness or by leading its own evidence. The insurance company has taken premium in unnamed passenger also in the cover note, it is no where mentioned that these un-named person are driver or cleaner, however it is clarified subsequently after 60 days it is after the money has been received and the vehicle has been insured, that this term has been altered to read as un-named passenger, two drivers and two cleaners. However, it is a case of third party liability.

28 Orissa High Court specifically mentioning that in compensation case under Motor Vehicles Act. FIR charge sheet or other police papers are not substantive evidence and same not to be accepted in view of oral evidence adduced by claimants, which is contrary to what has been stated in police papers. As per the above cited judgments, the FIR is not a gospel truth and once the petition go for trial and is put in cross examination, it is more important than that what is stated in the FIR. Hence, as the vehicle was duly insured and insurance company has failed to prove its defence that they are not liable to make the payment of the amount as both the passengers are unauthorised passengers. Onus of proving was on them. Neither they have examined any witness on their behalf on this point or cross examination, in my considered view specifically on this point infact a vague suggestion has been put which has been replied in affirmative by the witness that labourers were travelling with their belongings and tools. Nowhere a question was put to the witness that he was not travelling in the cabin when witness was specifically put on record that he was travelling in the cabin. Hence the insurance company is liable to make the payment of the compensation amount to the petitioners."

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Mac. App. 610/2013

Decided On: 21.04.2023

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mangal Shah and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Gaurang Kanth, J.

 Citation: 2023:DHC:2763, MANU/DE/2697/2023.

Print Page

AP HC: What action Insurance Company should take if it comes to its knowledge that claimant has put up a false motor accident claim petition in collusion with police?

Admittedly, in this case, the claimants have filed the claim petition on 17.10.2001. The Insurance Company filed counter thereafter. This means, the Insurance Company had knowledge that an allegation is made by the claimant with regard to the involvement of the lorry bearing registration No. ABT 3 in this accident. When the Insurance Company had knowledge that the claimants have alleged involvement of the lorry bearing registration No. ABT 3 in the accident, the Insurance Company should verify the facts. The possibility of falsely involving the vehicle in an accident cannot be ruled out. But as seen from the recitals of the counter, the Insurance Company had not taken any specific stand. At one stage, it doubted the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and at another stage, the insurance company had pleaded that the deceased himself had contributed to the accident. Thus, the insurance company had no clear view with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. When the Insurance Company entertains a doubt with regard to the involvement of a vehicle in the accident, it should appoint an investigator to enquire into the allegations as to whether a particular vehicle had plied on the particular route at particular time on a particular day or not. Fact should be verified. If the Insurance Company collects any such evidence to establish that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, then, they must contest the matter and adduce evidence in support of their case. When they come to know that the police investigation is false or that a vehicle is falsely implicated in a case, they must approach the superior police officers and see that necessary action is taken against the erring police officers who have filed a false charge-sheet implicating the vehicle which has no involvement in the accident. They must also challenge the charge-sheet in appropriate proceedings. What happened during the course of investigation and how the police have come to know about the involvement of the vehicle and whether it is due to Finding of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the place of accident or due to the version of the eye witnesses, all those aspects cannot be gone into at this stage. The possibility of police coming to know about the involvement of a vehicle or an accused through some unknown source also cannot be ruled out. The police officers do commit certain mistakes and involve innocent persons in criminal cases. Due to over enthusiastic attitude also, they commit mistakes. What is the fact is to be ascertained. It has to be seen whether police investigation resulted in finding the truth or not. If at all the findings of the police are found to be totally incorrect, it is for the insurance company to adduce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge-sheet are false. It is a fact that P.W. 2 deposed that the offending vehicle was not stopped at the place of accident. If that version is correct, there is no possibility of falling of driving licence at the place of accident. Admittedly, the accident occurred during the night time. Even if P.W. 2 had witnessed the accident and noted the offending vehicle number, admittedly he did not get down from the lorry in which he was travelling. It appears that it being night time, he could not have observed the place of accident and he might not have observed each and every object fallen at the place of accident. It is only during the course of preparation of panchanama at the place of accident that the panchas and the police are expected to observe each and every item and note them in their panchanama. The very purpose of conducting panchanama and the scene of offence is to show the location of the dead body, location of offending vehicle, time, marks or falling of any other objects at the place of accident.

{Para 19}

20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents/insurance company submitted that the version of P.W. 2 that the offending vehicle was not stopped at the place of accident supports the version of the insurance company that there is no possibility of falling of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the place of accident. As discussed above, since there is no clear evidence to show the distance between the offending lorry and the lorry in which P.W. 2 was travelling, the version of P.W. 2 that the offending vehicle did not stop at the place of accident need not be given much importance. Of course, this circumstance indicates that P.W. 2 also did not see the occurring of the accident. Even if we discard the evidence of P.W. 2, charge-sheet shows that there are two other eye-witnesses. Unless it is shown that police investigation is false, we cannot reach to a definite conclusion. When there is reasonable doubt in a claim petition arising out of the motor accidents, the benefit of doubt should go to the claimants. The possibility of the driver of the offending lorry stopping the offending vehicle at the place of the accident and looking at the scene and fleeing away from the place of accident also cannot be ruled out. Unless there is reliable evidence to show that the contents of the charge-sheet are false, on mere surmise, it cannot be said that the contents of the charge-sheet or the police investigation is false.

21. Learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that the insurance company has appointed the investigator, but however, the report of the said investigator is not available in the records of the insurance company. When such an important document is not filed by the insurance company, normally, adverse inference has to be drawn against the insurance company. Admittedly, none were examined on behalf of the insurance company. Mere taking a plea that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident or that there is contributory negligence would not help the insurance company in the absence of any reliable evidence in support of their contentions, A pleading cannot be taken as proved unless there is evidence to prove the same.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2128 of 2005

Decided On: 26.03.2014

K. Rajani Vs. M. Satyanarayana Goud

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Chandra Kumar, J.

Citation: 2014 ALT 6 3312015 ANWR AP 1 52015 ACC AP 3 2932015 ACJ 7972014 SCC ONLINE AP 418, MANU/AP/0828/2014

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Under which police papers are not binding on Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for deciding claim petition?

 Thus, it is clear that the claim cases cannot be decided solely only on the basis of documents forming part of police record. The claim cases are to be decided on the basis of material evidence, which is led before the Claims Tribunal. Furthermore, the documents collected during the investigation and the opinion formed by the Investigating Officer is not binding on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. {Para 6}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

Misc. Petition No. 5892 of 2024

Decided On: 25.10.2024

IFFCO Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mamta Bai Lodhi and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:54034,MANU/MP/3933/2024.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether motor accident claim tribunal can ascertain which vehicle was involved in the accident on the basis of police papers?

The aforesaid pronouncements indicate that the legal position has crystallized to the effect that the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the M.V. Act, 1988, is not to be hidebound by the strict rules of procedure and evidence. In the light of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal, it is enjoined to take a holistic view of the matter, and, on the basis of the material placed before it, arrive at a justifiable conclusion as regards the involvement of the vehicle and negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Such a finding of involvement and negligence can, in a given case, be based on the report filed by the police under Section 173 of the Code, post investigation into the report of death or injury having been caused by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. There is no warrant to discard the investigation papers as untrustworthy. Often they reflect the contemporaneous state of affairs. {Para 12}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

First Appeal No. 1072 of 2007

Decided On: 04.12.2021

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vajarabai Narayan Sadaram and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.J. Jamadar, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3952/2021.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Can Look Into Police Records To Determine Question Of Negligence?

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.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Prosecution Documents admitted As Genuine U/S 294 of CRPC By defence can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without examining its author

 Also, this Court in the case of Akhtar vs.

State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722 has held in para 21 as

under:

“21. It has been argued that nonexamination of the

 concerned medical

officers is fatal for the prosecution. However,

there is no denial of the fact that the defence

admitted the genuineness of the injury

reports and the poot-mortem examination

reports before the trial court. So the

genuineness and authenticity of the

documents stands proved and shall be

treated as valid evidence under Section 294

of the CrPC. It is settled position of law that

if the genuineness of any document filed by

a party is not disputed by the opposite party

it can be read as substantive evidence under

sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC.

Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its

genuineness is not disputed by the opposite

party, the said post-mortem report can be

read as substantive evidence to prove the

correctness of its contents without the doctor

concerned being examined.”{Para 20}

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024

SHYAM NARAYAN RAM Vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 800.

Print Page

Whether the court can frame Charge against the accused without giving him a reasonable opportunity to examine police papers?

Aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 6.6.2016, the petitioner, who is an accused in Mahila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st-cum-Special Judge, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, has sought for, inter alia, quashing of the order, dated 6.6.2016, whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner on the same day the police papers were given to the petitioner without giving him any opportunity much less any reasonable opportunity to examine the police papers and seek legal remedy.

2. The order, dated 6.6.2016, passed in Mahila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st-cum-Special Judge, Nalanda, at Biharsharif, framing of charge, is under challenge on the ground as indicated above that without giving the accused all those materials on which the prosecution relied upon, the charges were framed without giving any time for preparation to make his submission on the discharge.

3. The record reveals that on 6.6.2016, at 10:00 A.M., the copies of the statements and documents were furnished to the accused. The materials, so supplied, consisted of about 309 pages. This factual assertion, which has been made on behalf of the petitioner, has gone unchallenged.

6. We may pause here to point out that the learned Judge has given no indication at all as to what submission had been made by the accused and it is the case of the accused that though he wanted time to make his submission against framing of charge, he was not given adequate time enabling him to make his submission against framing of charges. From the hasty manner in which the case has been proceeded with leaves no room for doubt that no effective opportunity of hearing was given to the defence before the charges had been framed. A reference has been made, in this regard, by Mr. Jitendra Singh to a copy of the order, dated 17.7.2014, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 32938 of 2011. The relevant portion of the order reads:--

"In any view of the matter, it is one of the important rights of an accused in criminal case to prefer an application for discharge and the same has to be decided by the court, in seisin of the case, in accordance with law.

In view of the fact that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity of placing his case of discharge before the trial court, the order framing charge is set aside."

7. It has been pointed out by Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General No. 6, that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not envisage making of any application for discharge. Though, as rightly pointed out, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not make any specific provision for making an application for discharge, such an application is not barred in law. What is, however, required is that all the documents and materials, which the prosecution seeks to rely upon, must be furnished to the accused and it is after having given adequate and effective opportunity to the accused that the hearing on the charge shall take place. If the Court is satisfied that the materials collected during investigation makes out a case against an accused, charges can be framed; or else, the accused needs to be discharged. However sensitive a case may be or whatever news value a case may have, miscarriage of justice cannot be permitted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA

Cr.WJC No. 307 of 2016

Decided On: 04.07.2016

Raj Ballabh Prasad  Vs.  The State of Bihar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

I.A. Ansari, Actg. C.J.

Print Page

Mere production of police papers and exhibiting those documents does not dispense the proof of contents of those documents

As regards the evidence in the form of police papers is concerned, in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita Dattatraya Jamdade & others null [MANU/MH/1406/2004 : 2006 ACJ 971], this Court has held that the certified copies of FIR, panchanama and medical papers prepared by public servants in discharge of their public duty are admissible in evidence. However, the Division Bench of this Court at Goa Bench in Pukh Raj Bumb Vs. Jagannath Achut Naik & others [First Appeal No. 32 of 2013, decided on 11-07-2013] has held that mere production of police papers and exhibiting those documents does not dispense the proof of contents of those documents. The Division Bench of this Court went further and observed that merely on the basis of certified copies of FIR, spot panchanama and other documents, the claimants cannot prove their case. Therefore, it can be concluded that though police papers are required to be exhibited and the provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable, yet, that does not dispenses the claimants from proving the manner in which the accident had taken place and the point of negligence. If the claimants want to agitate negligence and rashness in respect of a particular party, then mere production of those documents will not absolve them, unless the situation on the basis of spot panchanama allows the Tribunal to draw the principles of res ipsa loquitur.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 02757 of 2017 and Cross Objection Stamp No. 10801 of 2019 in First Appeal No. 02757 of 2017

Decided On: 26.09.2019

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited  Vs.   Chandrakala Atmaram Mohite 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Print Page

When certified copies of police papers can be read in evidence without additional proof?

In this case the petitioners have produced
 certified copies of the F.I.R., spot panchanama and
 inquest panchanama. Since they are certified copies,
 they can be read in evidence without any additional
 proof. Those are public documents. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1618 OF 2007
 United India Insurance Co. Ltd.V Sayaji s/o. Masuji Shinde

CORAM : P.R. BORKAR, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 04.08.2008 
Citation:2009 (3) MHLJ539

Print Page

Whether court can give finding in respect of happening of accident and for reaching conclusion about negligence on the basis of FIR or Police papers?

 It is thus clear that in proceedings under the MV Act, where
procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of
pleading or evidence. Document having some probative value, the
genuineness of which is not in doubt can be looked into by the Tribunal
for getting preponderance of probable versions. As such, it is by now well
settled that even FIR or Police papers, when made part of claim petition
can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of theaccident and for reaching conclusion about negligence. In other words,
evidence of claimants is required to be examined in broader probabilities
of their case, in order to achieve object of social welfare legislation. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
 AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

 First Appeal No. 257 of 2010

Ashabai w/o. Kalyan Kothi,
 versus
 Baban s/o. Santosh Bidgar,
 CORAM : A.M. BADAR, J.
Date of pronouncing the
 judgment : 5th December 2015.

Print Page