Anil vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd..

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3291-3292 OF 2011

ANIL & ORS .....APPELLANTS

Versus

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS .....RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J

1 The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment dated 6 September

2010 reversed a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari dated

6 February 2001. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,38,000/-

together with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum to the appellants. The Signature Not Verified

High Court reversed the award on the ground that the appellants had set up a Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2018.01.19 17:03:29 TLT Reason: 2

“brazenly false case…to stage manage a fake involvement of the insured’s

vehicle”.

2 The deceased was a person by the name of Ram Kanwar. His brother

Satbir Singh was the owner of a tractor. The case of the claimants which was

sought to be established through PW1 Bhawani Shankar was that on 12

January 1995 he together with two others namely Rohtas and Ghanshyam

(PW2) were proceeding in a tractor driven by Dharampal from Sehjahpur to

village Jat Behrod. Ram Kanwar signalled for the tractor to stop. However, the

tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it ran

over Ram Kanwar. Besides adverting to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the

alleged eye-witnesses, the Tribunal adverted to the FIR lodged against Ram

Kanwar under Sections 279/304-A of the Penal Code. In holding that the

accident had occurred and that it was caused due to the negligence of the

tractor driver, the Tribunal observed thus:

“15.From the FIR Ex. PA death report Ex.PW8/1 of Ram Kanwar and unrebutted evidence led by the petitioner, it is proved on record that accident took place on 12.1.95 on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor No. RNL-2499 by its driver respondent No. 1 Dharampal and in the accident Ram Kanwar died.

Accordantly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.”

3 In appeal, the High Court has adverted in significant detail to a number

of “disturbing facts” which have emerged from the narration of the case by the

claimants. The High Court has adverted to the relevant aspects of the evidence

thus :

3

“2.There are disturbing facts that emerge from the narration of the case by the claimants. In this case, the deceased was Ram Kanwar and his brother, Satbir Singh, was the owner of the tractor. PW-1 Bhawani Shankar, who claims to be an -eye-witness, states that he, along with two other persons namely Rohtas and Ghanshyam (PW2), were in the tractor driven by Dharampal. Ram Kanwar deceased was stated to have travelled in the same tractor also from Behrod to Shehjahanpur and alighted at Foladpur for some work and asked the driver to pick him up on his return. The tractor was returning at about 6.30 PM and the deceased Ram Kanwar was standing on the road. While he signalled the tractor to stop, the tractor ran over the deceased by rash and negligent driving of the tractor. It is stated that he was run over under the wheel of the tractor. The deceased was said to have been taken immediately to hospital at Kotputli where he was found bleeding excessively. Dr O.S. Mehra (PW4), who was at the hospital, has recorded this fact in the OPD slip (Ex. P2) and said to have referred the deceased for further treatment at the GH at Gurgaon. It is not known whether the deceased died at the hospital at Gurgaon or he had died at GH, Kotoputli itself. Admittedly, no post-mortem had been conducted.”

Significantly, no post-mortem was conducted. The High Court also noticed the

fact that though the accident took place on 12 January 1995, a complaint was

lodged only on 15 February 1995. As regards the evidence of the driver, the

High Court noted that while at one stage he had stated that the deceased was

brought dead, at another place he stated that he was referred to the

government hospital for further treatment. The circumstance that no post-

mortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect of the case which in

our view has justifiably weighed with the High Court. Moreover, the High Court

found that if there were three passengers in the tractor, all of whom had known

that driver Dharampal had by his negligent act run over Ram Kanwar, the most

natural conduct would have been to lodge a complaint. The person who died

was the brother of the owner of the tractor. Hence, the fact that a complaint was 4

not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case. The High

Court has also noticed that there were no hospital records to indicate, from the

nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature

alleged. The deceased was conducting a transport business with his brother

and was an income tax assessee. The fact that proper medical records were

not available has, in this background, weighed with the High Court. Besides the

above aspects, the High Court has found that the assessment of compensation

by the Tribunal is perverse.

4 On a careful analysis of the judgment of the High Court and the material

on the record, we find no reason to take a view at variance with that of the High

Court. The reasoning contained in the award of the Tribunal was perfunctory.

The Tribunal failed to notice crucial aspects of the case which have a bearing

on the question as to whether the death of Ram Kanwar was caused as a result

of the accident caused by the tractor. Each of the circumstances relied upon by

the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set

up to support a claim for compensation. The appellants have not been able to

displace the careful analysis of the evidence by the High Court and the findings

which have been arrived at.

5

5 For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are

accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

............................................CJI [DIPAK MISRA]

…….........................................J [A M KHANWILKAR]

….............................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]

New Delhi January 19, 2018.