IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – Question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on evidence available before Tribunal – If Police records are available before Tribunal, taking note of purpose of Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for such purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The insurer of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-04-D-5675, held as the offending vehicle, filed the captioned appeal against the judgment dated 07.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa, at Cuttack in MACA No.627 of 2016 dismissing the appeal filed against the award dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nayagarh, in MAC No.57 of 2009. The claim petition was filed by the respondents herein seeking compensation for the death of one Udayanath Sahoo who succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident involving the motorcycle, being driven by him and the vehicle insured with the appellant. The aforesaid offending vehicle dashed against the rear side of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased Udayanath Sahoo when he was going to Bahadajhola at about 01.10 pm on 27.04.2019. Consequent to the hit, the motorcycle dashed against a tree standing by the road and Udayanath Sahoo succumbed to the injuries sustained and the pillion got severely injured. In connection with the accident, FIR No.61/2009 was registered at Police Station Sarankul. The legal heirs of deceased Udayanath Sahoo, the respondents herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act) claiming compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/-. The appellant was the second respondent therein. On appreciating the evidence consisting both oral and documentary, the Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 6,77,164/- along with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the actual payment.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal contending that the accident had occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased and not at all due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck, which was insured with the appellant and further that the Tribunal had erred in relying on the FIR and the other records, the appeal bearing No. MACA No.627/2016 was filed by the appellant herein, which was dismissed by the High Court as per the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. For understanding the case of the appellant, it is only appropriate to refer to the operative portion of the impugned judgment which reads thus:-

“On a perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, including the police papers such as, F.I.R. (Exts. 1 and 2), Final Form (Ext. 3) and the evidence of eye-witness (P.W. 2), in coming to hold that the driver of the offending truck no. OR-04-D/5675 was rash and negligent in causing the accident, which resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo, the rider of the motorcycle.

There is no dispute that in the Final Form submitted by the police after investigation, the accused driver of the offending Truck has been found to be guilty of rash and negligent driving, which resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo, the rider of the motorcycle no. OR-205/2229. Therefore, the impugned findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted.”

6. The core contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal as also the High Court relied on the fraudulent chargesheet prepared by the respondents in connivance with the police. In short, the contention of the appellant is that the High Court erred in relying on the chargesheet to arrive at the conclusion that the accident in question in which Udayanath Sahoo lost his life had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with the appellant. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not file any counter affidavit, the learned counsel appearing for them would submit that there is absolutely no illegality in relying on such documents consisting of FIR and the final report prepared in relation t