1. Claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act following a fatal road accident involving a motorcycle and a mini-truck. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1055
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Suhagrani And Others – Appellants
Versus
Manager Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9476 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25092 of 2024)
Decided On : 14-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Ranjan, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr.Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Alok Kr.Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anand Ranjan, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr.Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Alok Kr.Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Claim application – Non-filing of complaint immediately after occurrence of accident would not be fatal to claimants.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Claim application – Dismissal by High Court – Fatal accident – At no point of time Insurer has challenged charge-sheet filed against driver of offending vehicle – Wife of deceased who was pillion rider was the best witness, as she was accompanying deceased and was present at the time of accident – She had entered witness box and deposed as to the manner in which accident had occurred – Non-filing of complaint immediately after occurrence of accident by her would not be fatal particularly when near and dear of claimants were in trauma and were attending to immediate requirement of medical attention to deceased – Findings recorded by High Court set aside – In so far as determination of compensation is concerned, Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.12,43,324/- with 6% interest – Even if it is accepted that deceased was earning income by carrying out agricultural operations, due to his death income from agricultural land is not lost – Loss of dependency that had occasioned due to non-considering agricultural income has been offset by considering fact that entire pension is not deprived to claimants – Compensation of Rs.12,43,324/- with 6% interest as awarded by Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation – Major portion of compensation (85%) has to be apportioned to wife of deceased – Award of Tribunal to that extent stands modified. (Paras 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellants are challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.5345 of 2023 by High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereunder the appeal filed by insurance company has been allowed and claim petition has been dismissed and the judgment and award passed by MACT, has been set aside.
Findings of Court:
Even if fresh exercise is undertaken to compute the compensation, there could be only marginal increase and as such we do not propose to enhance the compensation and/or reduce the same as awarded by Tribunal. Hence, we affirm the compensation awarded by the tribunal as just and reasonable compensation.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the legal document provided, here are the key points:
Case Details * Case Name: Suhagrani And Others vs. Manager Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. * Court: Supreme Court of India. * Bench: J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. * Civil Appeal No.: 9476 of 2025 (originally SLP (Civil) No. 25092 of 2024). * Decided On: 14-07-2025. * Subject: Motor Vehicle - Claims and Compensation. * Act Referred: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166. (!) (!) (!)
Important Legal Principle * The non-filing of a complaint immediately after the occurrence of an accident is not fatal to the claimants, especially when family members are in trauma and attending to immediate medical requirements of the deceased. (!)
Facts of the Case * The appellants (claimants) challenged the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had dismissed their claim petition and set aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). (!) * On 24.09.2021, Mr. Nathuram Ahirwar (husband of claimant No. 1) was driving a motorcycle with his wife (claimant No. 1) as a pillion rider. (!) * The motorcycle was hit from the hindside by a mini-truck bearing registration No. MP 04 GB 5604. (!) * The deceased sustained injuries and expired on 01.10.2021 while being treated. (!) * The insurer contended that the deceased fell due to loss of balance/negligence of his own and that the offending vehicle's driver did not possess a valid license. (!) * The wife of the deceased (PW-1) was the best witness as she was present at the time of the accident. (!) * The son of the deceased (PW-2) had given a statement to the police suggesting the deceased fell due to imbalance, which the High Court relied upon to dismiss the claim. (!) * However, PW-2 denied making such a statement before the police during the Tribunal proceedings. (!) * The insurer never challenged the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. (!)
Findings of the Court * The High Court erred in ignoring the evidence of PW-1 (the wife) and giving undue importance to the statement of PW-2 (the son), especially since PW-2 retracted his police statement. (!) * The High Court failed to consider that the filing of a chargesheet against the offending driver was not disputed. (!) * The Supreme Court set aside the findings of the High Court. (!) * Regarding compensation, the Tribunal had awarded Rs. 12,43,324/- with 6% interest. (!) * The claim for high agricultural income (Rs. 10-20 lakhs annually) was rejected due to lack of documentary evidence. (!) * Even if agricultural income was considered, the loss of dependency is offset by the fact that the wife retains 50% of the pension. (!) * The Supreme Court affirmed the compensation of Rs. 12,43,324/- with 6% interest as just and reasonable. (!) * The compensation was apportioned as follows: 85% to the wife of the deceased and 15% to the three minor children in the ratio of 5:5:5. (!)
Result * Appeal allowed in part. (!) (!) * The award of the Tribunal stands modified regarding the apportionment of compensation. (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the accident resulted from the deceased's negligence or the offending vehicle's rash driving, and the evidentiary value of police statements versus oral testimony. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. The court found the pillion rider's testimony credible and noted that unproven police statements cannot override sworn testimony, especially when a chargesheet was filed. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Sworn testimony of an eye-witness prevails over an unproven police statement, and the non-examination of a corroborating witness is not fatal if primary evidence is sufficient. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed in part; High Court judgment set aside, Tribunal's compensation affirmed, and apportionment of the award modified. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
6. Does a statement made to the police prevail over a witness's sworn testimony in court if the police officer is not examined?
No. If a witness denies making a statement to the police during cross-examination and the police officer who recorded the statement is not examined to prove its contents, the statement cannot be used to disbelieve the witness's sworn testimony. (Para 9 )
7. Is the non-examination of a corroborating witness fatal to a claim if the primary eye-witness provides credible testimony?
No. The non-examination of a corroborating witness is not fatal if the evidence of the primary eye-witness, such as a pillion rider, is sufficient to establish the occurrence and cause of the accident. (Para 10 )
8. Does a delay in filing a police complaint immediately after a fatal accident invalidate the claimants' plea?
No. Delay in filing a complaint is not fatal when the claimants are in trauma and prioritizing immediate medical attention for the injured person. (Para 10 )
9. How is loss of income from agricultural land treated in motor accident compensation claims?
Without documentary evidence, self-assertions of high agricultural income are rejected. Since the land remains with the claimants, they are generally entitled only to supervision charges rather than full income loss. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT :
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein (i.e., the claimants before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal) are challenging the judgment and award dated 08.02.2024 passed in Misc. Appeal No.5345 of 2023 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh whereunder the appeal filed by the insurance company has been allowed and the claim petition has been dismissed and the judgment and award passed by MACT, Deori, District Sagar (M.P) in MACC No.09/2022 dated 25.01.2023 has been set aside.
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
3. A claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act came to be filed by the appellants herein seeking compensation of Rs.1,88,08,448/- contending inter-alia that on 24.09.2021 Mr. Nathuram Ahirwar, husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant No’s. 2-4, while travelling on his motorcycle was hit by a mini-truck (Ape pick up vehicle) bearing registration No. MP 04 GB 5604 from hindside and as a result he fell down and sustained injuries due to which he expired on 01.10.2021 while being treated. On being notified of the claim the insurer filed its statements of objections contending inter alia that accident had occurred due to negligence of deceased himself namely he had lost balance while driving and therefore deceased fell down from his vehicle and the theory of the offending vehicle having caused the accident is far from truth. It was also contended that claimants had colluded with the driver of the ‘Ape’ vehicle (offending vehicle) to raise the plea of accident having been caused by ‘Ape’ vehicle which is totally incorrect and even otherwise the driver of ‘Ape’ vehicle did not possess valid driving license and as such insurer of the offending vehicle is not required to indemnify the claim. The respondent No.1 before the tribunal i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle had been placed ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings of the party, the tribunal framed five issues for its determination.
4. In order to discharge the burden cast on the appellants, wife of the deceased got herself examined as PW-1 and also examined her son i.e., claimant No.3 as PW-2 and in all produced 48 documents which were marked as Exhibits P1 to 48. On behalf of the insurance company none were examined, and 3 documents were produced in support of the defence.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL:
5. The tribunal after considering the material on record held that the accident had been caused by the offending vehicle and the deceased had expired due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.12,43,324/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till date of payment.
FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT:
6. The insurer of the offending vehicle challenged the judgment and award of the tribunal which came to be allowed primarily on two grounds, namely, (i) the Claimant No.3, Naresh Kumar, PW-2 had admitted that he had given his statement before the police which was to the effect that deceased had sustained injuries after falling from the motorcycle due to imbalance and as such the theory of the accident having been caused by the offending vehicle is far-fetched; (ii) the wife of the deceased-PW.1 who was the pillion rider had witnessed the accident and she had admitted that she had not seen the registration number of the offending vehicle and the story of her son in law who was following them having seen the registration number of the offending vehicle cannot be believed as he was not examined. On these amongst other grounds as discussed under the impugned judgment, the High Court had allowed the appeal of the insurer by absolving the insurer of its liability and dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal by the claimants.
CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF PARTIES:
7. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants that tribunal had passed a well-reasoned award by taking into consideration the statement of PW-1, i.e., the wife of the deceased who was a pillion rider of the
