NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has explained it is not impermissible for a Tribunal set up under the Motor Vehicle Act to consider police reports and other evidence on negligence to decide compensation in accident cases.
A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal dismissed an appeal filed against the Orissa High Court's judgment that upheld the Tribunal's order to pay a compensation of award for Rs 6,77,164 along with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum to Rajani Sahoo, wife of Udaynath Sahoo, who succumbed injuries after the motorcycle ridden by him was hit by the offending truck on April 27, 2019.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on MACT and Police Reports in Accident Compensation Cases
The court said there can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal.
"If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act, it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the purpose is impermissible or inadmissible," the bench said.
How Police Records Impact Negligence Determination in Motor Vehicle Accident Claims
The court rejected a contention by the appellant ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd that the Tribunal as also the High Court relied on the "fraudulent charge sheet" prepared by the respondents in connivance with the police, to fix liability on the insurer.
The appellant contended the High Court erred in relying on the chargesheet to arrive at the conclusion that the accident in question in which Udayanath Sahoo lost his life had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with it.
The bench, however, said filing of charge-sheet prima facie points towards complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly.
The court noted the appellant had claimed that the respondent claimants connived with police and fraudulently prepared the charge sheet. The appellant claimed that the vehicle insured with it was not involved in the accident, which had occurred solely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased.
However, the bench said, the evidence on record would reveal that pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognisance was taken for rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo.
