2007 Supreme(SC) 761

2007(5) Supreme 370
Supreme Court of India
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. — Appellant
versus
Premlata Shukla & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2526 of 2007
Decided on : 15-05-2007

Important points
If objection is not raised and document was allowed to be marked and that too at instance of a party which had proved same and wherefor consent of other party had been obtained, former party cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that contents of documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon.
Proof of rashness and negligence on part of the driver of vehicle, is, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act.

Headnote:Motor vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death of deceased in motor vehicular accident when tempo trax he was traveling in collided with a truck – FIR lodged u\s 304 A IPC against driver of truck – However case closed as truck could not be traced – Claim petition against driver, owner and Insurance company with which tempo trax was insured – Dismissed by Tribunal holding that driver of tempo trax was not driving vehicle rashly and negligently – Appeal – Allowed by High Court opining that FIR having been legally not proved, driver of tempo trax should be held to be guilty of driving rashly and negligently – Appeal there against on plea that respondents themselves having relied on FIR, High Court could not have ignored same – Contention of respondent that FIR was brought on record for purpose of proving accident and for fixing liability on part of driver of vehicle held misconceived – Once a part of contents of documents is admitted in evidence, party bringing same on record cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that other contents contained in rest part thereof had not been proved – Both parties had relied thereupon on FIR – FIR was marked as exhibit as both parties intended to rely upon them - Once a part of FIR was relied upon by both parties, Tribunal could not be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon other part, irrespective of contents of document been proved or not - If contents had been proved, question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon rest, on technical ground that same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise – Impugned judgment of High Court being unsustainable held liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed.(Paras 13 to 16)

       2001 ACJ 428: (2001) 2SCC 9,(2003) 8 SCC 745, (2004) 5 SCC 385 referred to (1969 PLR 908) relied upon.

       Admissibility of a document - Objections there against - A party objecting to admissibility of a document must raise its objection at appropriate time - If objection is not raised and document was allowed to be marked and that too at instance of a party which had proved same and wherefor consent of other party had been obtained, former party cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that contents of documents had not been proved and, thus, should not be relied upon. (Para 15)

       Rash and negligent driving – Liability for payment of compensation – Where an accident occurs owing to rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle, resulting in sufferance of injury or death by any third party, driver would be liable to pay compensation therefore - Owner of vehicle in terms of Act also becomes liable under 1988 Act - In event vehicle is insured, which in case of a third party, having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 147 of Act, is mandatory in character, Insurance Company would statutorily be enjoined to indemnify owner - Insurer, however, is liable to re-imburse insured to extent of damages payable by owner to claimants subject of course to limit of its liability as laid down in Act or contract of insurance - Proof of rashness and negligence on part of driver of vehicle, hence held sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act.(Paras 9,10)

       Facts of the case:

       Death of deceased herein in the instant case in motor vehicular accident when tempo trax he was traveling in collided with a truck. FIR was lodged u\s 304 A IPC against driver of truck. However case was closed as truck could not be traced. Claim petition against driver, owner and Insurance company with which tempo trax was insured was dismissed by Tribunal holding that driver of tempo trax was not driving vehicle rashly and negligently. Appeal was allowed by High Court opining that FIR having been legally not proved, driver of tempo trax should be held to be guilty of driving rashly and negligently.

       Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court:

       The Court held that once a part of contents of documents is admitted in evidence, party bringing same on record cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that other contents contained in rest part thereof had not been proved Contention of respondent that FIR was brought on record for purpose of proving accident and for fixing liability on part of driver of vehicle held misconceived. Both parties had relied thereupon on FIR. FIR was marked as exhibit as both parties intended to rely upon them. Once a part of FIR was relied upon by both parties, Tribunal could not be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon other part, irrespective of contents of document been proved or not. If contents had been proved, question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon rest, on technical ground that same had not been proved in accordance with law, not arose. Impugned judgment of High Court being unsustainable held liable to be set aside.