1. Motor accident claim — Death of rider — Dispute over involvement of offending vehicle — Appeal against High Court order setting aside Tribunal award. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1041
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Sanju Bai Prajapati & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9466 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.13455 of 2023)
Decided on : 14-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Ranveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Nagarn, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Mr. F K Jha, Adv. Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jha, Adv. Ms. Shalini Jha, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Ankita Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Ranveer Singh, Adv. Mr. Shiva Nagarn, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Awantika Manohar, AOR Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Mr. F K Jha, Adv. Mr. Tarun Verma, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jha, Adv. Ms. Shalini Jha, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
The Supreme Court emphasized that credible eyewitness testimony cannot be dismissed based on minor discrepancies; a delay in FIR registration alone does not undermine the veracity of the account.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act - The award by the Tribunal was set aside by the High Court due to doubts over the involvement of the offending vehicle, which the Supreme Court found unfounded, reinstating the Tribunal's compensation of Rs.46,29,152/- as no conditions of the insurance policy were violated. (Paras 3-8)
(B) Eyewitness Testimony - The High Court disregarded the eyewitness's account without sufficient justification; mere discrepancies in minor details or delays in FIR registration cannot negate credible evidence. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The claimants, wife and minor children of the deceased, alleged the involvement of a vehicle in a fatal accident, initially compensated by the Tribunal, which the High Court overturned on questionable grounds.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found no valid reason to reject the eyewitness accounts and reinstated the Tribunal's order to award compensation to the claimants.
Issues: The primary issues were concerning the validity of the eyewitness testimony and the justification for the High Court's skepticism towards the police investigation and FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that irrelevant doubts raised by the High Court lacked grounding and reaffirmed the significance of eyewitness testimony and proper investigative procedures in motor accident claims.
Result: Appeal allowed, reinstating the Tribunal's award.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The Supreme Court reinstated a Tribunal's compensation award of Rs.46,29,152/- in a motor accident claim after the High Court had set it aside (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's award was based on doubts over the involvement of the offending vehicle, which the Supreme Court found unfounded (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court found that the High Court disregarded the eyewitness's account without sufficient justification (!) (!) . - Minor discrepancies in eyewitness testimony or a delay in FIR registration alone cannot undermine the veracity of credible evidence (!) (!) (!) . - The Tribunal had found that no conditions of the insurance policy were violated (!) (!) . - The insurance company's contention that the offending vehicle was not involved due to a delayed FIR registration (three months after the accident) was not accepted (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court found no valid reason to reject the eyewitness accounts and reinstated the Tribunal's order to award compensation (!) (!) . - The High Court's skepticism towards the police investigation and FIR was deemed unfounded (!) . - The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants within two months, equally apportioned between the wife and three minor children (!) . - If minor children have not attained majority, their share of the compensation is to be kept in a fixed deposit, with interest disbursed to the mother as guardian (!) .
What is the significance of eyewitness testimony in motor accident claims?
What are the grounds for setting aside a Tribunal's award in motor accident claims?
How should minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts be treated in motor accident claims?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Insurance company contended the offending vehicle was not involved, citing delay in FIR registration and lack of driver's license and vehicle permit. (Para 4 )
3. The court found the accident proved by the Murg report and held that delay in FIR is not suspicious if investigation is based on official reports. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Delay in filing an FIR is not fatal to a claim if the accident is proved by other official records and subsequent investigation. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Tribunal's compensation award restored with directions for disbursement to claimants. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Does a delay in registering an FIR automatically make the involvement of a vehicle suspect in a motor accident claim?
No. If the accident is proved by other evidence, such as a Murg report filed on the day of the accident, the delay in FIR is not necessarily suspicious, especially if the investigation subsequently identifies eyewitnesses. (Para 7 )
7. Can the testimony of an eyewitness be dismissed solely because they cannot recall specific details like the vehicle's color or registration number?
The court indicated that picking holes in an eyewitness's deposition regarding minor details, such as the color of the vehicle or the specific background of the number plate, without just cause, is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence. (Para 6 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of a Murg report in establishing the occurrence of a road accident?
A Murg report filed on the day of the accident serves as evidence that the accident occurred, providing a basis for subsequent police investigation and the registration of an FIR. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The wife and three minor children of the deceased in a motor accident are before us, assailing the order of the High Court which found the involvement of the offending vehicle to be suspect. The award of the Tribunal was hence set aside, disentitling the claimants from any compensation.
3. The deceased was working as a Peon in a school and while he was returning home, the motorcycle which he was riding hit a vehicle coming at a very high speed and the rider, injured grievously, was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The wife and three minor children raised a claim before the Tribunal, which was allowed, granting total compensation of Rs.46,29,152/-. The appellants though had claimed a compensation of Rs.53,79,820/-, did not file an appeal from the award. The insurance company filed an appeal which was allowed against which the claimants have come before this Court.
4. The contention taken by the insurance company was that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, especially on the ground that the FIR was registered three months after the accident. It was also contended that the driver did not have a driving license, and the vehicle did not have a permit to be used as a transport vehicle.
5. The Tribunal found that the documents of the vehicle were seized by the police and there is nothing to indicate any violation of conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal also found that an eyewitness was examined as PW-2 who had categorically stated about the accident, which he witnessed.
6. The High Court, on an appeal by the insurance company, picked holes in the deposition of the eyewitness; according to us without just cause. The fact that he could not speak on the details of the vehicle, like color and registration number was held to be crucial. The deposition of PW-2 that the registration of the offending vehicle was written in black color on a white background was disbelieved on the ground that the offending vehicle was a commercial one in which the number plate is written in white on a yellow background. The fact that the FIR was registered after three months was also an additional factor to disbelieve the evidence of the eyewitness, was the finding.
7. As far as the accident, it is seen that there is no dispute since a Murg report was made on intimation from the hospital which is produced as Annexure P-1 in which it was recorded that a person involved in a road accident was admitted to the hospital who died at 12:30 am. The accident is said to have occurred at 6 pm and the murg report was on the same day. The mere fact that PW-2, the eyewitness did not approach the police cannot be a reason to find the delay in FIR to be suspicious. The accident itself having been proved and a Murg report filed, definitely investigation would be carried out. We see from the FIR that based on the Murg report an investigation was carried out in the course of which the eyewitness was detected and Annexure P-2 FIR was registered. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the FIR, especially since the insurance company did not make any attempt to examine the investigating officer before the Tribunal.
8. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court, therefore, we set aside the same. The amounts, with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal shall be disbursed to the claimants within a period of two months, which shall be equally apportioned in the name of the wife and three minor children. If any of the minor children have not attained majority, the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit, the interest of which can be disbursed to the mother who is the guardian. The insurance company shall deposit the amounts within the period stipulated before the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall apportion the amounts as directed hereinabove.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
