MACT Can Look Into Police Records Made Available Before It While Considering Question Regarding Negligence In Motor Accident Cases: SC
The Supreme Court observed that the question regarding negligence is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim and the same should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal.
The Apex Court made such an observation while adjudicating upon an appeal pertaining to a motor accident case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar Justice & Justice Rajesh Bindal asserted, “If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.”
Advocate Navneet Kumar represented the Appellant while AOR Ajay Choudhary represented the Respondents.
In this case, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed the captioned appeal against the judgment of the Orissa High Court dismissing the appeal filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the respondents 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 facts of the case suggested that the offending vehicle dashed against the rear side of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased Udayanath Sahoo when he was going to Bahadajhola. Consequent to the hit, the motorcycle dashed against a tree standing by the road and Sahoo succumbed to the injuries sustained and the pillion got severely injured. In connection with the accident, an FIR was registered.
The legal heirs of deceased, the respondents herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act) claiming compensation of Rs 10,50,000.The appellant was the second respondent therein. The Tribunal passed an award for ₹ 6,77,164 along with the interest. 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 was filed by the appellant. However, the same was dismissed by the High Court and this is how the matter reached the Apex Court.
It was the case of the Appellant that the Tribunal as also the High Court relied on the fraudulent chargesheet prepared by the respondents in connivance with the police. The High Court erred in relying on the chargesheet to conclude that the accident in question in which the deceased lost his life had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with the appellant.
The Respondents contended that there was no illegality in relying on such documents consisting of FIR and the final report prepared in relation to the accident in question by the police, to consider the question of negligence in a motor vehicle accident case.
The Bench noticed that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with the accident in question. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving.
The Bench also placed reliance upon the judgment in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi & Anr (2023) wherein it has been observed that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.
“Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal”, the Bench said. The Apex Court also clarified that it couldn’t be said that looking into the police records available before the Tribunal is impermissible or inadmissible.
The appellant had attributed that the respondent claimants connived with police and fraudulently prepared the chargesheet. The contention was that the vehicle insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident and the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased. However, the Bench noticed that the evidence on record revealed that pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognizance was taken for rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of the deceased.
In light of such factual and legal aspects, the Bench found no perversity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 6)
Appellants: Advocates Navneet Kumar, Harsh Sharan, AOR Parijat Kishore
Respondent: AOR Ajay Choudhary, Advocates L R Rath, S.K Das, Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Mayank Dahiya, AOR Prativa Prakash Janapriya Nayak
The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the question regarding negligence is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim and the same should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal.
The Apex Court made such an observation while adjudicating upon an appeal pertaining to a motor accident case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar Justice & Justice Rajesh Bindal asserted, “If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible.”
Advocate Navneet Kumar represented the Appellant while AOR Ajay Choudhary represented the Respondents.
In this case, the insurer of the offending vehicle filed the captioned appeal against the judgment of the Orissa High Court dismissing the appeal filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the respondents 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 facts of the case suggested that the offending vehicle dashed against the rear side of the motorcycle ridden by the deceased Udayanath Sahoo when he was going to Bahadajhola. Consequent to the hit, the motorcycle dashed against a tree standing by the road and Sahoo succumbed to the injuries sustained and the pillion got severely injured. In connection with the accident, an FIR was registered.
The legal heirs of deceased, the respondents herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act) claiming compensation of Rs 10,50,000.The appellant was the second respondent therein. The Tribunal passed an award for ₹ 6,77,164 along with the interest. 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 was filed by the appellant. However, the same was dismissed by the High Court and this is how the matter reached the Apex Court.
It was the case of the Appellant that the Tribunal as also the High Court relied on the fraudulent chargesheet prepared by the respondents in connivance with the police. The High Court erred in relying on the chargesheet to conclude that the accident in question in which the deceased lost his life had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with the appellant.
The Respondents contended that there was no illegality in relying on such documents consisting of FIR and the final report prepared in relation to the accident in question by the police, to consider the question of negligence in a motor vehicle accident case.
The Bench noticed that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with the accident in question. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving.
The Bench also placed reliance upon the judgment in Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi & Anr (2023) wherein it has been observed that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.
“Thus, there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal”, the Bench said.
The Apex Court also clarified that it couldn’t be said that looking into the police records available before the Tribunal is impermissible or inadmissible. The appellant had attributed that the respondent claimants connived with police and fraudulently prepared the chargesheet. The contention was that the vehicle insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident and the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased.
However, the Bench noticed that the evidence on record revealed that pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognizance was taken for rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of the deceased.
In light of such factual and legal aspects, the Bench found no perversity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 6)
Appellants: Advocates Navneet Kumar, Harsh Sharan, AOR Parijat Kishore
Respondent: AOR Ajay Choudhary, Advocates L R Rath, S.K Das, Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Mayank Dahiya, AOR Prativa Prakash Janapriya Nayak
Click here to read/download Order:
