CMA/1933/2024 of CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD Vs PADMAVATHI on 15 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Dhandapani J.) Aggrieved by the impugned award dated 02.08.2023 passed by the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in MCOP No.3180 of 2017, the Appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal questioning its liability.

2. On 08.01.2017, when the appellant insured lorry bearing registration No.TN-20-AK-4376 was parked on the left side of the road, the bus bearing registration No.TN-25-N-0342 proceeding to Retterikarai near A.V.K.Farm House, Kanchipuram District which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the lorry due to which, the deceased who was employed as the conductor in the bus, died on the way to the Hospital. It is under these circumstances, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in MCOP No.3180 of 2017 claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased.

3. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and had proceeded to pass the impugned award.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Insurance Company submitted that though the First Information Report clearly shows that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the bus driver of the Transport Corporation against whom the criminal case had also been registered, however, the Tribunal without properly appreciating the evidence on record, had erroneously fastened the negligence jointly and severally on the drivers of both the vehicles and therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.

5. Though notice was served on the respondents 1 to 4 & 6 and their name printed in the cause list, none appeared on behalf of them today. Considering the pendency of the Appeal, this Court is inclined to dispose of the same based on the materials available on record.

6. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent corporation submitted that though an FIR had been registered against the 5th respondent bus driver and charge sheet had also been filed, the FIR cannot be treated as a conclusive proof so as to fasten the entire liability on the part of the 5th respondent bus driver as it is merely an information furnished to the law enforcing agency. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

7. The Appellant insurance company has not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. However, the challenge in the present appeal is confined to the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence fixed on the 6th respondent and its consequential liability to pay the compensation. After elaborately considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has passed an award based on the evidence of P.W.2.

8. It is the case of the Insurance Company that at the relevant point of time, the FIR was registered only against the driver of the transport corporation bus. However, it is to be pointed out that it has been the consistent view of the Courts that FIR may not and need not contain all the details. It is settled law that FIR is not a conclusive proof nor is an encyclopedia for deciding the case. Further FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and it has to be substantiated by acceptable positive legal evidence. The FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion and no further. Merely because certain information is not mentioned or wrongly mentioned in the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the statement of eye witnesses to the occurrence, when the said statements are found to be trustworthy. (See Rohtash – Vs – State of Rajasthan (2006 (12) SCC 64 and Ranjit Singh & Ors. – Vs – State of Madhya Pradesh (JT 2010 (12) SC 167). The view expressed in the aforesaid decision has been reiterated by the Apex

Court in State of UP – Vs – Naresh & Ors. (2011 (4) SCC 324).

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, when the evidence of P.W.2 is examined, it reveals that the lorry was parked without any signal and indication close to the center median and in the FIR, it is alleged that the transport corporation bus came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry. A perusal of Ex.P1 (FIR copy) also reveals the same. In order to counter the evidence of P.W.2, except for the FIR, no other material document or oral evidence has been placed by the Insurance Company, to disprove the statement of PW2 and establish its case. In such a scenario, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry as well as the driver of the transport corporation bus and, therefore, the finding on the said aspect does not required to be interfered with.

10. For the reasons aforesaid, this Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the award passed by the tribunal in MCOP.No.3180 of 2017 dated 02.08.2023 and the appellant / insurance company and the 5th respondent corporation is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.19,49,400/- awarded by the tribunal to the credit of MCOP.No.3180 of 2021 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit and costs as awarded by the Tribunal, less the amount, if any, already deposited, within a

M.DHANDAPANI, J. AND DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J. NHS period of six weeks (6) from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal is directed to transfer the said amount to the respondents 1 to 4 directly to their bank account through RTGS within a period of two (2) weeks thereafter. The said award amount shall be apportioned amongst the claimants as per the Award of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.) 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No NHS To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

and C.M.P.No.15097 of 2024