Accident Witnesses Often Don't Come Forward, Police Records Sufficient To Conclude Claimant's Injuries In Absence Of Contradictions: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has held that unless there is some material indicating of active collusion between the injured and driver/owner of the offending vehicle to lay a false claim seeking compensation, proof in the form of police records would be sufficient enough for the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal to come to conclusion that claimant has proved his case of suffering injuries in...
The Karnataka High Court has held that unless there is some material indicating of active collusion between the injured and driver/owner of the offending vehicle to lay a false claim seeking compensation, proof in the form of police records would be sufficient enough for the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal to come to conclusion that claimant has proved his case of suffering injuries in the accident.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed an appeal preferred by Shriram General Insurance Company challenging the validity of judgment and award passed on 30.08.2017 allowing the claim petitions filed by Yunus and others. An amount of Rs.77,350 and Rs.1,19,050 was granted respectively.
The insurance company contended that there is no eyewitness to the incident. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court's judgment in Anita Sharma and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, relating to standard of proof in Motor Accident Claim Cases.
The bench noted that if the accident takes place in a busy area or in an urban area it is easy to secure eyewitness to the incident. But when the accident has occurred in the rural area or a road which was not that busy then procuring an eyewitness is a difficult task for more than one reason.
“Firstly, those who have witnessed the accident might not be interested in setting the criminal law in motion. Secondly, even if some persons were to come to rescue the injured they may refrain to intimate the police based on their past experience with the investigation agency or general impression they carry about the police,” it said.
Under such circumstances, Court said, expecting an eyewitness to be present in each and every case, is far from reality. Thus it held,
“Unless some material is available on record which would compel the Court to come to a conclusion that there is an active collusion between the injured persons, driver and owner of the vehicle only to lay a false claim of compensation from the Insurance Company by falsely implicating the vehicle, formal proof in the form of police records would be sufficient enough for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the claimant has proved his case that he suffered injuries in the road traffic accident.”
Dismissing the appeal the court held “When the material on record is analysed, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the police records and in the absence of any compelling reasons which would at least indicate active collusion between the claimants and the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle or the driver, has allowed the claim petitions. Even after re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in recording such findings by the Trial Court.”
Appearance: Advocate S.K. Kayakamath for Appellant.
Advocate G.R. Turumari for R1
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
Case Title: The Divisional Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Yunus & Others
Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104098 OF 2017 (MV-I) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.104099 OF 2017