Motor Vehicles Act | Delay In Recording Eyewitness Statement Not Sufficient To Disbelieve His Version: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that in motor accident cases, a delay in recording the statement of the eyewitness is not crucial to disbelieve his version.

Justice Sam Koshy observed so while dealing with an appeal moved by Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

"Only because the statement of eye witness was recorded at a belated stage or eye witness having not disclosed this fact to any other person till the statement was recorded before police authorities cannot be a ground to disbelieve his version."

In 2020, a constable with the Chhattisgarh Police met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries. His widow and daughter filed a claim and the Tribunal allowed the same by awarding a compensation of Rs. 54,68,200/-. While passing the award, the tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 4% per annum and with penal clause that in case if the amount is not paid within a period of two months, then the amount beyond a period of two months shall carry interest at the rate of 6% till it's actually paid. 

Aggrieved by this decision, the Insurance Company moved the High Court. The appellant company pointed out that the accident is said to have occurred on 29.08.2020 and the deceased died on 31.08.2020, but the FIR was lodged only on 20.10.2020 i.e. after about 52 days from the date of accident.

It was further contended that even the statement of the alleged eyewitness gives rise to many suspicions since he had not disclosed the involvement of the offending vehicle to any person till the FIR was lodged.

The Single Judge recalled the settled position of law that in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, when the claim application arising out of an accident is to be decided, the standard of proof required is not of the same standard which is required while proving of a criminal case.

"It is the principles of preponderance of probability that has to be applied while the claim application under the Motor Vehicle Act."

The Court added that merely because the statement of eye witness was recorded at a belated stage cannot be a ground to disbelieve his version since it could be also a case where he must have disclosed it to the family members but nothing was done since at that point of time, the whole family was grieving the death of the deceased.

Justice Koshy further opined that the recording of a statement or the disclosure of facts to the police officer at a later stage under the prevailing circumstances cannot be ruled out, particularly taking note of the place of incidence and place of residence of the claimants and said eye witness.  

The court dismissed the appeal.

Advocate R. N. Pusty appeared for the petitioner in the matter while the respondents were represented by Advocates Praveen Dhurandhar and Ranjana Tiwari. 

Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Gangi Mandavi & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Chh) 87  

Click Here To Read/Download The Order