Sanju Bai Prajapati vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd

2025 INSC 823 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No…….…….of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.13455 of 2023)

SANJU BAI PRAJAPATI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGEMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The wife and three minor children of the deceased in a

motor accident are before us, assailing the order of the High

Court which found the involvement of the offending vehicle

to be suspect. The award of the Tribunal was hence set aside,

disentitling the claimants from any compensation.

3. The deceased was working as a Peon in a school and

Signature Not Verified while he was returning home, the motorcycle which he was Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2025.07.14 15:48:04 IST Reason: riding hit a vehicle coming at a very high speed and the rider,

Page 1 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023 injured grievously, was taken to the hospital where he

succumbed to the injuries. The wife and three minor children

raised a claim before the Tribunal, which was allowed,

granting total compensation of Rs.46,29,152/-. The appellants

though had claimed a compensation of Rs.53,79,820/-, did not

file an appeal from the award. The insurance company filed

an appeal which was allowed against which the claimants

have come before this Court.

4. The contention taken by the insurance company was

that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the

accident, especially on the ground that the FIR was

registered three months after the accident. It was also

contended that the driver did not have a driving license, and

the vehicle did not have a permit to be used as a transport

vehicle.

5. The Tribunal found that the documents of the vehicle

were seized by the police and there is nothing to indicate any

violation of conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal

also found that an eyewitness was examined as PW-2 who had

categorically stated about the accident, which he witnessed.

Page 2 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023

6. The High Court, on an appeal by the insurance

company, picked holes in the deposition of the eyewitness;

according to us without just cause. The fact that he could not

speak on the details of the vehicle, like color and registration

number was held to be crucial. The deposition of PW-2 that

the registration of the offending vehicle was written in black

color on a white background was disbelieved on the ground

that the offending vehicle was a commercial one in which the

number plate is written in white on a yellow background. The

fact that the FIR was registered after three months was also an

additional factor to disbelieve the evidence of the

eyewitness, was the finding.

7. As far as the accident, it is seen that there is no dispute

since a Murg report was made on intimation from the hospital

which is produced as Annexure P-1 in which it was recorded

that a person involved in a road accident was admitted to the

hospital who died at 12:30 am. The accident is said to have

occurred at 6 pm and the murg report was on the same day.

The mere fact that PW-2, the eyewitness did not approach the

police cannot be a reason to find the delay in FIR to be

Page 3 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023 suspicious. The accident itself having been proved and a

Murg report filed, definitely investigation would be carried

out. We see from the FIR that based on the Murg report an

investigation was carried out in the course of which the

eyewitness was detected and Annexure P-2 FIR was

registered. We do not find any reason to disbelieve the FIR,

especially since the insurance company did not make any

attempt to examine the investigating officer before the

Tribunal.

8. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the

High Court, therefore, we set aside the same. The amounts,

with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal shall be disbursed

to the claimants within a period of two months, which shall be

equally apportioned in the name of the wife and three minor

children. If any of the minor children have not attained

majority, the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit, the

interest of which can be disbursed to the mother who is the

guardian. The insurance company shall deposit the amounts

within the period stipulated before the Tribunal and the

Page 4 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023 Tribunal shall apportion the amounts as directed

hereinabove.

9. The appeal stands allowed.

10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

...……….……………………. J.

(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)

………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

JULY 14, 2025.

Page 5 of 5 CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023