Supreme Court of India
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chamundeswar
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No. 6151 of 2021
Hon’ble Judges : Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Decided on : 01-10-2021
2021-JX(SC)-0-592; 2021 (0) AIJEL-SC 67797
Yes, If any evidence before the Motor Accident Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report.
Cases Referred To :
1. National Insurance Company Limited V. Pranay Sethi And Others, 2017 16 SCC 680 : 2017
AIR SC 5157 : 2017 (13) Scale 12 : JT 2017 (10) 450 : 2017 (8) Supreme 107
2. Nishan Singh And Others V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2018 6 SCC 765 : 2018 AIR
SC 2118 : 2018 (6) Scale 441 : JT 2018 (6) 46 : 2018 (4) Supreme 560
3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited V. Premlata Shukla And Others, 2007 13 SCC 476 : 2007
(7) Scale 725 : JT 2007 (8) 575 : 2007 (6) SCR 780 : 2007 AIR SCW 3591
4. Sarla Verma (Smt) And Others V. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another, 2009 6 SCC 121 :
2009 AIR SC 3104 : 2009 (6) Scale 129 : JT 2009 (6) 495 : 2009 (5) SCR 1098
It is clear from the evidence on record of PW 1 as well as PW 3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW 1 & PW 3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van.
It is to be noted that PW 1 herself travelled in the very car and PW 3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eye witness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report.
In the judgment, relied on by the appellant’s counsel in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and Others, this Court has held that proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act. In the said judgment, it is held that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. In the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company(2) Limited, this Court has held, on facts, that the car of the appellant therein, which crashed into truck which was proceeding in front of the same, was driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance as contemplated under Road Regulations, framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula.
Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Having regard to
evidence in the present case on hand, we are of the view that both the judgments relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance in support of his case.
