Insurer Has Not Challenged Chargesheet: Supreme Court Affirms Compensation Awarded By Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowing a claim, and reversed the Judgment of the High Court in favour of the Insurance Company, for the reason inter alia that the Insurance Company did not challenge the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.

The Supreme Court was considering an Appeal filed by the Claimant against the judgment and award by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, whereby the Appeal filed by the Insurance Company was allowed and the Claim Petition was dismissed and the award passed by MACT was set aside.

The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar held, "Further it is to be noted that, at no point of time the insurer has challenged the chargesheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. For these cumulative reasons, we are unable to accept the arguments canvassed on behalf of the insurer....."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate-On-Record Anand Ranjan, while the Respondent was represented by Advocate-on-Record Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy.

Facts of the Case

A Claim Petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act came to be filed by the Appellants seeking compensation of ₹1,88,08,448/- contending inter-alia that on September 24, 2025, the Husband of Claimant No.1 while travelling on his motorcycle was hit by a mini-truck from hindside and as a result he fell down and sustained injuries due to which he expired. 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 i.e., 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 not true. 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 Tribunal 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, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of ₹12,43,324/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition till the date of payment.

Later, the High Court overturned the Tribunal's finding that the Claimant No.3 and PW-2 had admitted that he had given his statement before the Police which was to the effect that the 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.

Counsel for the Appellant contended that PW-2 was not present at the time of the accident and the High Court had committed a grave error in giving undue importance to his statement recorded by the police particularly when he had retraced his statement or in other words had denied giving his statement to the police, when he deposed before the Tribunal.

Reasoning By Court

The Court concluded that by relying upon the statement of PW-2, the Insurer has made an attempt to stave off its liability by contending that PW-2 had admitted before the jurisdictional police that deceased had himself fallen on account of his vehicle having fallen due to loss of balance.

"This statement made by PW2 before the jurisdictional police has found favour with the High Court and thereby disbelieved the plea of the claimants which had been accepted by the Tribunal. However, the High Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that PW-2 when confronted while being cross-examined with his statement made to the jurisdictional police exhibit D-1 has denied having given such statement. He has also specifically deposed that he has no stated before the police that his father had fallen from the motorcycle on his own accord. He has specifically denied that false complaint has been lodged by the claimant before the jurisdictional police. The jurisdictional police who had recorded the statement (Ex-D1) of PW-2 was not examined. No attempts have been made by the insurer of the offending vehicle to prove the contents of Ex-D1. This is yet another reason as to why the findings recorded by the High Court in this regard cannot be sustained. The fact that the jurisdictional police had conducted investigation and recorded the statement of various persons during course of investigation had resulted in filing of the chargesheet against the driver of the offending vehicle which is not in dispute has been completely ignored by the High Court and it has proceeded to doubt the very occurrence of the accident, by ignoring the vital evidence available on record. No reason has been assigned by the High Court as to why the said evidence was being brushed aside or not taken into consideration," the Court observed.

The Appeal was accordingly partly allowed.

Cause Title: Suhagrani And Others vs. Manager Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate-On-Record Anand Ranjan, Advocate Rajeev Kumar Sinha, Advocate Abhishek Kr. Singh, Advocate Vikas Pachauri, Advocate Alok Kr.Singh

Respondent- Advocate-on-Record Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy,

Click here to read/ download Judgment