High Court Picked Holes In Deposition Of Eyewitness Without Just Cause: Supreme Court While Upholding Order Granting Motor Accident Compensation
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the wife and three minor children of the deceased in a motor accident.
Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside an order disentitling a woman and her three children from any compensation in a motor accident case while noting that the High Court picked holes in the deposition of the eyewitness without just cause.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal filed by the wife and the three minor children of the deceased in a motor accident against the order of the High Court, which found the involvement of the offending vehicle to be suspect. The award of the Tribunal had also been set aside by the impugned order.
The Division Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “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.”
AOR Vikas Upadhyay represented the Appellants, while AOR Awantika Manohar represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The deceased was working as a Peon in a school. 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 insurance company filed an appeal, which was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Tribunal found that the documents of the vehicle were seized by the police, and there was nothing to indicate any violation of the conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal also found that an eyewitness had categorically stated about the accident, which he witnessed. However, the fact that he could not speak on the details of the vehicle, like color and registration number was held to be crucial by the High Court.
The Bench also referred to the Murg report made on intimation from the hospital. It was recorded therein that a person involved in a road accident was admitted to the hospital, who died at 12:30 am. The accident was said to have occurred at 6 pm, and the report was made 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”, it said while also adding, “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.”
Thus, setting aside the order of the High Court, the Bench directed that the amounts, with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal shall be disbursed to the claimants within 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”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Sanju Bai Prajapati & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 823)
Appearance
Appellants: AOR Vikas Upadhyay, Advocates Ankita Kashyap, Ranveer Singh, Shiva Nagarn
Respondents: AOR Awantika Manohar, AOR Binay Kumar Das, Advocates F K Jha, Tarun Verma, Gaurav Jha, Shalini Jha, Sanjay Kumar Singh