Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a fatal motor accident in which a school peon died after his motorcycle hit a speeding vehicle while returning home. His wife and three minor children filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal held in their favour, awarding a total compensation of Rs.46,29,152/-, finding no violation of policy conditions and relying on the testimony of an eyewitness (PW-2). The insurance company appealed to the High Court, contending that the offending vehicle was not involved, the FIR was lodged after three months, and the driver lacked a valid license and permit. The High Court allowed the insurance company’s appeal, disbelieving the eyewitness on grounds of minor inconsistencies, including his inability to recall the vehicle’s colour and registration number and his description of the number plate as black on white whereas commercial vehicles have white on yellow plates. The High Court also found the delay in FIR registration suspicious and set aside the award, disentitling the claimants. Aggrieved, the claimants approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the High Court was justified in discarding the Tribunal’s well-reasoned award based on such minor discrepancies, especially when the occurrence of the accident was independently established by a contemporaneous murg report. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and held that the High Court’s approach was erroneous. The Court noted that the murg report, filed on the same day of the accident, clearly recorded that the deceased was admitted to hospital following a road accident and later died. The FIR, though registered after three months, was based on an investigation that led to the identification of the eyewitness. The insurance company had failed to examine the investigating officer to challenge the FIR’s credibility. Regarding the eyewitness, the Court found that the High Court had picked holes without just cause; the inability to remember vehicle details or a minor mistake about number plate colour could not be grounds to entirely discard his testimony when the fact of the accident was undisputed. The Court also observed that the Tribunal had already considered the insurance company’s contentions about driving license and permit and found no violation of policy conditions. Concluding that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference was unwarranted. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order was set aside, and the Tribunal’s award was restored with interest. The insurance company was directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within two months, to be equally apportioned between the wife and three minor children. For any minors not yet of age, the amount was to be kept in fixed deposit with interest payable to the mother as guardian. All pending applications were disposed of.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims – Proof of Accident – Murg Report as Evidence – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – The Supreme Court held that a murg report made on intimation from the hospital on the same day as the accident is sufficient to prove the occurrence of the accident. Delay of three months in filing FIR does not render the claim suspicious when the accident is contemporaneously recorded. Held that the High Court’s finding to the contrary was unsustainable. (Paras 7-8) B) Motor Accident Claims – Appreciation of Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility and Inconsistencies – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – The Court held that minor inconsistencies in the deposition of an eyewitness, such as the inability to state the vehicle’s color or registration number and a misstatement about the number plate background color, do not justify discarding the testimony altogether, especially when the fact of the accident is otherwise proved. Held that the High Court’s approach was unjust and its order was set aside. (Paras 6-7) C) Insurance – Defences – Failure to Examine Investigating Officer – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – The Court observed that the insurance company’s failure to examine the investigating officer before the Tribunal, despite challenging the veracity of the FIR, significantly weakened its case. The FIR was based on investigation, and without examining the IO, the court found no reason to disbelieve it. Held that the insurance company’s appeal was not sustainable on that ground. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Tribunal’s compensation award by disbelieving the involvement of the offending vehicle based on minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony and delay in FIR registration
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and restored the Tribunal’s award of Rs.46,29,152/- with interest. The insurance company was directed to deposit the amount within two months, to be equally apportioned among the wife and three minor children, with minors’ shares kept in fixed deposit with interest payable to the mother as guardian.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- In motor accident claims
- murg report is sufficient proof of accident
- minor inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony do not justify total rejection
- delay in FIR not fatal if accident otherwise proved
- insurance company must examine investigating officer to challenge FIR veracity
