Sanju Bai Prajapati vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd
- SCC(2025) 9 SCC 414
- Neutral2025 INSC 823
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A delay in FIR registration, standing alone, is not a sufficient ground to disbelieve the eyewitness testimony of an accident when the accident itself is established through contemporaneous documentary evidence such as a Murg report, and the investigating officer has not been examined by the insurance company to challenge the investigation. Minor inconsistencies in an eyewitness's recollection of vehicle details, such as the colour of a registration plate, do not render the entire testimony unreliable where the witness has categorically stated the occurrence of the accident and the High Court has rejected such testimony without just cause. Where a motor accident is established by documentary evidence and the Tribunal has granted compensation after examining eyewitness testimony, the High Court should not set aside the award on grounds of suspicion regarding vehicle involvement without cogent evidence, particularly where the insurance company has failed to examine investigating officers or produce contradictory evidence before the Tribunal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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, 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.
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 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 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.
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free