Gujarat HC Rejects Insurer's Claim That 33 Year Old Accident Was Murder, Says Investigating Officer's Report To Magistrate Not 'Gospel Truth'

The Gujarat High Court dismissed an Insurance Company's plea against an order of the Motor Accident's Claims Tribunal which had awarded compensation to the kin of two persons who died in a road accident 33 years ago, rejecting the company's claim that it was a case of murder. 

In doing so, the Court questioned the reliance of the Insurance Company on a report sent by the concerned investigating officer to the magisterial court claiming that it sought to add the offence of murder. It said that the company, except for relying on this report had not produced any evidence.

A single judge bench of Justice J. C. Doshi in its October 1 order said,

"The case of the Insurance Company is that both deceased were administered poison by mixing it in a cup of tea by one Ramfal and therefore, it is the case of murder simpliciter. The base for such submission is the report of the I.O. submitted to learned JMFC...But notably the investigating officer has not been examined by the Insurance Company. Even Mr. Ramfal is not examined to establish the case pleaded by the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company merely placing reliance upon report filed by I.O. to the learned JMFC for adding of offence pleaded the case of murder simpliciter. However, filing of such report alone could not be considered as gospel evidence or proof to believe that it is a case of murder simpliciter. Per contra, on record by multiple evidence, it is established that the truck ran over two persons and both of them died due to receiving multiple injuries. Evidence, to the extent, that at the time of wheels of truck ran over two victims, whether they were conscious or unconscious. In fact Insurance Company except pleading murder simpliciter and relying upon report, has not produced any evidence". 

Background

The order was passed in an appeal filed by an insurance company against orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which had in 2008 partly allowed two pleas and awarded Rs.2,36,000 and Rs.56,000 (respectively) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the pleas till realization jointly and severally from the defendants.

As per the FIR registered in 1991, a truck ran over two men near Tarshali by-pass on National Highway No.8 where the construction of the expressway was going on. It was lodged under IPC Sections 304A (causing death by negligence) read with Section 279 (criminal liability of driving or riding a vehicle in a rash or negligent manner on a public road) against an unknown vehicle and unidentified persons but it revealed that the vehicle ran over two persons resulting into death of both of them. The Postmortem repprt demonstrated multiple injuries on the body of the deceased which was noted to be a reason for cause of death and all injuries noted in the report were ante mortem. 

The counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the tribunal failed to consider the statement of one Ramfal discovered by police (InvestigatingAgency) regarding the poisoning of the deceased as a personal vendetta. It was contended that the tribunal relied on the statement of the postmortem report and not on the FSL report submitted by the doctor after the autopsy. He further stated that it is a murder disguised as road accident.

The Counsel appearing for the claimants/deceased emphasized that under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claims for compensation can be made when injuries or deaths arise from the use of a motor vehicle. The death of the deceased was a direct result of the truck running over them which constituted a clear road accident. He further argued that even if the insurance company's theory is taken as valid, it would only support the idea of accidental murder rather than murder simpliciter, since the insurance company did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the deceased were poisoned before the truck ran over them. He contended that, based on this reasoning, the documents put on record by the insurance company were submitted by I.O.and he was not examined by the insurance company hence, the tribunal was correct in granting the claim petition.

Findings

The Court while examining the provision of Section 165 of the Act said that the the phrase "arising out of the use of motor vehicle" is important. It said that the statute does not require that for claiming compensation, "rash and negligent driving resulted into damage" should always be  proved. It further said that the use of motor vehicle and the damage, injury arising out of the use of motor vehicle is sufficient to claim compensation under the provisions of the Act. 

The high court referred to the court's decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ashaben Darshansinh Vaghela (2011) wherein it was held that "in absence of proof that incident of vehicular accident was intentional murder by the driver, the Claims Tribunal is under obligation to grant just compensation". 

It thereafter held, "In the present case the Insurance Company though propounded a theory of murder simpliciter could not bring on record as evidence anything more than a report forwarded by the I.O. to the learned JMFC. The Insurance Company has not examined Mr.Ramfal, the person against whom the allegations are made to administer poison to both the deceased as well as not produced on record copy of the report of viscera which was sent for FSL to buttress that both deceased were rather killed and not died in the road accident...In the present case though the Insurance Company tried to put the case of murder simpliciter, it could not successfully take out the case from the fact that two persons were died because the wheels of the truck ran over them.Merely filing of some report for adding offence of murder would not ipso facto take over the case that both deceased have died out of use of motor vehicle". 

The high court thereafter dismissed the insurance company's appeal. 

Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd Through v/s Ramrul @ MunnaLokane Mina & Ors.

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 147

Click Here To Download Order