Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment and award dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No.5/1999. The dispute involved a jeep bearing registration No. MH-30-B-11978 insured with the appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited, which met with an accident on the road between Dapura and Deori in Akola district. The jeep was carrying passengers, and one Shankarrao, an inmate, died. His widow and children (respondents 1-4) filed a claim for compensation. The insurer raised a defence of breach of policy terms, alleging that the jeep was overloaded beyond the permitted capacity of ten persons. The Tribunal negatived this defence, holding that the insurer had not proved the breach. The appellant-insurer appealed, contending that the Tribunal ignored the recitals in the First Information Report (FIR) which stated that 10-15 persons were travelling in the jeep. The respondents did not appear. The court examined the evidence: the original petitioner no.2, Manohar, testified that the jeep carried 8 passengers including the driver, and denied that 10-15 persons were travelling. The insurer examined Jagdeo Sukhdeve, the Divisional Manager, who was not an eyewitness and relied solely on the FIR (Exhibit 35). The court noted that the FIR contained a vague statement '10-15 persons were travelling in the jeep' and that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated this evidence. The court held that the insurer failed to prove the breach of policy conditions, as the FIR alone was insufficient to establish overloading. The appeal was dismissed, and the award of the Tribunal was confirmed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Breach of Policy Conditions - Burden of Proof - The insurer must prove breach of policy terms by leading independent evidence; vague statements in FIR are insufficient. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the insurer failed to prove that more than ten persons were travelling in the jeep, as the only evidence was a vague FIR statement. (Paras 3-6) B) Evidence Act - First Information Report - Evidentiary Value - FIR is not substantive evidence and cannot be the sole basis to prove a fact unless corroborated. The court noted that the FIR statement '10-15 persons' was vague and not supported by any other evidence. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-insurer proved breach of policy conditions by overloading the jeep, and whether the Tribunal erred in ignoring the FIR recitals.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola in M.A.C.P. No.5/1999 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on insurer to prove breach of policy terms
- Vague statements in FIR insufficient to establish overloading
- Insurer must lead independent evidence beyond FIR
