ANIL & ORS versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS on 19 January 2018

[2018] 1 S.C.R. 321

ANIL & ORS

v.

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS

(Civil Appeal Nos. 3291-3292 of 2011)

JANUARY 19, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles – Accident – Claim for compensation – Tractorran over the deceased – Tribunal held that the accident had occurreddue to the negligence of the driver and granted compensation –High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal – On appeal, held:The circumstance that no post-mortem was conducted on thedeceased is an extremely significant aspect – The fact that acomplaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significantomission in the case – Also, there were no hospital records toindicate, from the nature of the injuries, that death had occurreddue to an accident of the nature alleged – Each of the circumstancerelied upon by the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusionthat a false case was set up to support a claim for compensation.

Prosecution case was that PW-1 together with two others(including PW2) was proceeding in a tractor, when deceasedsignaled for the tractor to stop. However, the tractor ran overthe deceased. Tribunal adverting to the evidence of PW1 andPW2, the alleged eye-witnesses and the FIR registered u/s.279/304-A, held that the accident had occurred due to the negligenceof the tractor driver and granted compensation. However, HighCourt reversed the decision of the Tribunal. Hence the presentappeals.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. In appeal, the High Court has adverted insignificant detail to a number of “disturbing facts” which haveemerged from the narration of the case by the claimants. Thecircumstance that no post-mortem was conducted is an extremelysignificant aspect of the case which has justifiably weighed withthe High Court. Moreover, the High Court found that if therewere three passengers in the tractor, all of whom had known that

321

A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

Athe driver had by his negligent act run over the deceased, themost natural conduct would have been to lodge a complaint. Theperson who died was the brother of the owner of the tractor.Hence, the fact that a complaint was not lodged for nearly onemonth is a significant omission in the case. The High Court hasalso noticed that there were no hospital records to indicate, fromBthe nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to anaccident of the nature alleged. The deceased was conducting atransport business with his brother and was an income taxassessee. The fact that proper medical records were not availablehas, in this background, weighed with the High Court. [ParaC3][323-D-E; 324-C-F]

2. Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Courtis germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set upto support a claim for compensation. The appellants have notbeen able to displace the careful analysis of the evidence by theDHigh Court and the findings which have been arrived at. [Para4][324-G-H]CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3291-3292 of 2011.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2010 of the High CourtEof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cross Objection No. 57-CII of2006 and FAO No. 1357 of 2001 (O&M).

Aishwarya Bhati, Vishwajit, Ms. W. V. T. Sangama, Advs. forthe Appellants.

P. P. Nayak, Ajay Pal, Ms. Bhupinder, Ms. Vandana M. Hooda,FAdvs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1.The Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court by its judgment dated 6 September 2010 reversed a decisionGof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari dated 6 February 2001.The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,38,000/- together withinterest at the rate of 9 percent per annum to the appellants. The HighCourt reversed the award on the ground that the appellants had set up a“brazenly false case…to stage manage a fake involvement of the insured’svehicle”.H

2. The deceased was a person by the name of Ram Kanwar. Hisbrother Satbir Singh was the owner of a tractor. The case of the claimantswhich was sought to be established through PW1 Bhawani Shankarwas that on 12 January 1995 he together with two others namely Rohtasand Ghanshyam (PW2) were proceeding in a tractor driven by Dharampalfrom Sehjahpur to village Jat Behrod. Ram Kanwar signalled for thetractor to stop. However, the tractor was driven in a rash and negligentmanner, as a result of which, it ran over Ram Kanwar. Besides advertingto the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the alleged eye-witnesses, the Tribunaladverted to the FIR lodged against Ram Kanwar under Sections 279/304-A of the Penal Code. In holding that the accident had occurred andthat it was caused due to the negligence of the tractor driver, the Tribunalobserved thus:

“15.From the FIR Ex. PA death report Ex.PW8/1 of Ram Kanwarand unrebutted evidence led by the petitioner, it is proved on recordthat accident took place on 12.1.95 on account of rash and negligentdriving of tractor No. RNL-2499 by its driver respondent No. 1Dharampal 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 anumber of “disturbing facts” which have emerged from the narration ofthe case by the claimants. The High Court has adverted to the relevantaspects of the evidence thus :

“2.There are disturbing facts that emerge from the narration ofthe case by the claimants. In this case, the deceased was RamKanwar and his brother, Satbir Singh, was the owner of the tractor.PW-1 Bhawani Shankar, who claims to be an -eye-witness, statesthat he, along with two other persons namely Rohtas andGhanshyam (PW2), were in the tractor driven by Dharampal.Ram Kanwar deceased was stated to have travelled in the sametractor also from Behrod to Shehjahanpur and alighted at Foladpurfor some work and asked the driver to pick him up on his return.The tractor was returning at about 6.30 PM and the deceasedRam Kanwar was standing on the road. While he signalled thetractor to stop, the tractor ran over the deceased by rash andnegligent driving of the tractor. It is stated that he was run overunder the wheel of the tractor. The deceased was said to havebeen taken immediately to hospital at Kotputli where he was foundbleeding excessively. Dr O.S. Mehra (PW4), who was at the ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Ahospital, has recorded this fact in the OPD slip (Ex. P2) and saidto have referred the deceased for further treatment at the GH atGurgaon. It is not known whether the deceased died at the hospitalat Gurgaon or he had died at GH, Kotoputli itself. Admittedly, nopost-mortem had been conducted.”

BSignificantly, no post-mortem was conducted. The High Courtalso noticed the fact that though the accident took place on 12 January1995, a complaint was lodged only on 15 February 1995. As regards theevidence of the driver, the High Court noted that while at one stage hehad stated that the deceased was brought dead, at another place hestated that he was referred to the government hospital for furtherCtreatment. The circumstance that no post- mortem was conducted is anextremely significant aspect of the case which in our view has justifiablyweighed with the High Court. Moreover, the High Court found that ifthere were three passengers in the tractor, all of whom had known thatdriver Dharampal had by his negligent act run over Ram Kanwar, theDmost natural conduct would have been to lodge a complaint. The personwho died was the brother of the owner of the tractor. Hence, the factthat a complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significantomission in the case. The High Court has also noticed that there wereno hospital records to indicate, from the nature of the injuries, that deathhad occurred due to an accident of the nature alleged. The deceasedEwas conducting a transport business with his brother and was an incometax assessee. The fact that proper medical records were not availablehas, in this background, weighed with the High Court. Besides the aboveaspects, the High Court has found that the assessment of compensationby the Tribunal is perverse.

F

4. On a careful analysis of the judgment of the High Court andthe material on the record, we find no reason to take a view at variancewith that of the High Court. The reasoning contained in the award of theTribunal was perfunctory. The Tribunal failed to notice crucial aspectsof the case which have a bearing on the question as to whether theGdeath of Ram Kanwar was caused as a result of the accident caused bythe tractor. Each of the circumstances relied upon by the High Court isgermane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set up to supporta claim for compensation. The appellants have not been able to displacethe careful analysis of the evidence by the High Court and the findingswhich have been arrived at.H

ANIL & ORS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

5. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeals. Theappeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H