If evidence of eye-witness is contrary to the FIR, no weightage can be given to the FIR: Supreme Court of India

 C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 REPORTABLE IN THE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6151 OF 20 Arising out of Special Leave PetitionNo.47019 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Chamundeswari & Ors. ...Respondent(s JUDGMENT R.SUBHASH REDDY J. This appeal is filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No.1204 of 2018. By the aforesaid order the High Court has partly C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by enhancing compensation to Rs.1 85 08 832 The 1st Respondent is wife and the 2nd Respondent is minor son of the deceased Mr Subhash Babu who died in a road accident on 14.10.2013. The deceased Mr. Subhash Babu aged about 35 years was working as Manager HR in a Private Limited Company. On the date of accident he was driving Maruti car bearing No.DL 2C P 5414 on NH 47 main road from Perumanallur to Erode At that time the Eicher van bearing Registration No.TN 33 AZ 5868 was proceeding in front of the car driven by the deceased. It is the case of the respondentsclaimants that all of a sudden the driver of Eicher van has turned towards right side without giving any signal or indicator. In the said accident driver of the Maruti car Mr Subhash Babu died and other passengers in the car i.e. 1st Respondentwife 2nd Respondentminor son and sister of the 1st Respondent suffered C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 In the Claim Petition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Additional District Court Tiruppur respondents claimed compensation of Rs.3 crores. The respondents pleaded negligence on the part of the driver of Eicher van as he has taken right turn without giving any signal or indicator as such accident occurred only due to negligence of driver of Eicher van. The appellant and others have appeared before the Claims Tribunal and opposed the claim. The Claims Tribunal vide order dated 11.12.2017 passed in M.C.O.P. No.842 of 2014 has allowed the claim partly and awarded compensation of Rs.10 40 500 with a finding that there was a contributory negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles in ratio of 75% and 25% on the part of the deceased and the driver of Eicher van respectively. On appeal the High Court by recording a finding that accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the Eicher van and the annual income of the deceased was C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 Rs.12 29 949 has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1 85 08 832 including the compensation on conventional heads. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court the Insurance Company filed this Appeal before this Court We have heard Mr. K. K. Bhat learned counsel appearing for the AppellantInsurance Company and Mr. V. Balaji learned counsel appearing for the The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is twofold. Firstly it is submitted that though the Tribunal has correctly apportioned the negligence on the part of the deceased and the driver of Eicher van the same was overturned by the High Court contrary to the evidence on record. Mainly it is contended that in the First Information Report it was categorically mentioned that accident occurred only due to negligence by the deceased. In spite of the same such important documentary evidence is ignored by the High Court. The learned counsel in support of his arguments placed reliance on C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 the judgments of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and Others1 and in the case of Nishan Singh and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited2 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the compensation awarded by the High Court is exorbitant in absence of any acceptable evidence on record to show income of the deceased as pleaded in the Claim Petition On the other hand Mr. V. Balaji learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the accident occurred only due to the sheer negligence on the part of the driver of Eicher van. It is submitted that the deceased was driving Maruti car and ahead of them the Eicher van was proceeding and the driver of the said van turned towards right side without any signal or indicator and the said lapse resulted in the accident. It is further submitted that the deceased was working as Manager HR in a Private Limited Company and was earning a sum of 1 2007SCC 476 2 2018SCC 765 C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 Rs.1 33 070 per month in spite of the same the High Court has taken income of the deceased at Rs.12 29 949 per annum and awarded the compensation. It is submitted that in view of the oral and the documentary evidence on record a just compensation is awarded by the High Court and there are no grounds to interfere with the It is clear from the evidence on record of PW1 as well as PW3 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 PW1 & PW3 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 PW1 herself travelled in the very car and PW3 who has given statement before the police was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record there is no reason to give weightage C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 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 Others1 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 Limited2 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 C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 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 Even with regard to quantum of compensation it is clear from the judgment of the High Court that the accident occurred on 14.10.2013 the High Court has correctly taken into account the salary disclosed by the deceased in Form16 for the Financial Year 2012 2013 and income of the deceased is taken as Rs.12 29 949 per annum for the purpose of determination of loss of dependency. Though it was the claim of the respondentsclaimants that the deceased was earning Rs.1 33 070 per month the same was not accepted and the High Court itself assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.12 29 949 per C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 annum. As the deceased was in permanent job and having regard to age of the deceased on the date of the accident the future prospects and the multiplier were correctly applied by the High Court which is in conformity with the judgment of this Court in the Case of Sarla Verma SCC 121 4 2017SCC 680 C.A.@ SLP(C) No.47019 Deposit in a Nationalised bank. The said amount shall be paid to the respondentsclaimants with accrued interest. The balance amount payable by the appellantInsurance Company shall be paid within a period of two months from today …J (R. SUBHASH REDDY …J (HRISHIKESH ROY NEW DELHI October 01 2021

Summary: It is noted that PW-1 was traveling in the same car and PW–3, who has given a 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. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Supreme court before Hon’ble Justice R. SUBHASH REDDY Hon’ble Justice HRISHIKESH ROY in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Chamundeswari &amp; Ors.  [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6151 OF 2021]. 
The fact of the case was that the husband of Respondent no. 1 died in a motor vehicle accident on 14.10.2013. The deceased Mr Subhash Babu, aged about 35 years was working as Manager HR in a Private Limited Company. On the date of the accident, he was driving a Maruti car on NH-47 – the main road from Perumanallur to Erode. At that time, the Eicher van was proceeding in front of the car driven by the deceased. It was the contention of the claimant that the driver of the Eicher van turned right without any signal or indication and thus the accident occoured resulting in the death of the husband and injuries to respondents no. 1 &amp; 2. The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the driver and thus allowed the claim partly and awarded compensation of Rs.10,40,500/-. Aggrieved the claimant approached the High court and the high court allowed her appeal and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,85,08,832/- Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court the insurer has preferred the instant appeal on the contention that according to the FIR the accident happened due to the sole negligence of the deceased.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “The evidence of PW–1 &amp; 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.”

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the fact should be appreciated that PW-1 &amp; PW-3 were traveling in the same car as the deceased. PW-3 was examined as eye-witness by the police who has supported the story of PW-1. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the FIR.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing that there is no merit in the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The fact of the case was that the husband of Respondent no. 1 died in a motor vehicle accident on 14.10.2013. The deceased Mr Subhash Babu, aged about 35 years was working as Manager HR in a Private Limited Company. On the date of the accident, he was driving a Maruti car on NH-47 – the main road from Perumanallur to Erode. At that time, the Eicher van was proceeding in front of the car driven by the deceased. It was the contention of the claimant that the driver of the Eicher van turned right without any signal or indication and thus the accident occoured resulting in the death of the husband and injuries to respondents no. 1 &amp; 2. The tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the driver and thus allowed the claim partly and awarded compensation of Rs.10,40,500/-. Aggrieved the claimant approached the High court and the high court allowed her appeal and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,85,08,832/- Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court the insurer has preferred the instant appeal on the contention that according to the FIR the accident happened due to the sole negligence of the deceased. 
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “The evidence of PW–1 &amp; 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.”

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the fact should be appreciated that PW-1 &amp; PW-3 were traveling in the same car as the deceased. PW-3 was examined as eye-witness by the police who has supported the story of PW-1. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the FIR.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing that there is no merit in the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “The evidence of PW–1 &amp; 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.” 
Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the fact should be appreciated that PW-1 &amp; PW-3 were traveling in the same car as the deceased. PW-3 was examined as eye-witness by the police who has supported the story of PW-1. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the FIR.

Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing that there is no merit in the instant appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the fact should be appreciated that PW-1 &amp; PW-3 were traveling in the same car as the deceased. PW-3 was examined as eye-witness by the police who has supported the story of PW-1. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the FIR. 
Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal observing that there is no merit in the instant appeal.