ANIL & ORS versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 19-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
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 AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles – Accident – Claim for compensation – Tractor
ran over the deceased – Tribunal held that the accident had occurred
due 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 the
deceased is an extremely significant aspect – The fact that a
complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significant
omission in the case – Also, 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 – Each of the circumstance
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.
Prosecution case was that PW-1 together with two others
(including PW2) was proceeding in a tractor, when deceased
signaled for the tractor to stop. However, the tractor ran over
the deceased. Tribunal adverting to the evidence of PW1 and
PW2, the alleged eye-witnesses and the FIR registered u/s.279/
304-A, held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence
of the tractor driver and granted compensation. However, High
Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal.  Hence the present
appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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
circumstance that no post-mortem was conducted is an extremely
significant aspect of the case which 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
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 321
321
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
322
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
the driver had by his negligent act run over the deceased, 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 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. [Para
3][323-D-E; 324-C-F]
2.  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.  [Para
4][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 Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cross Objection No. 57-CII of
2006 and FAO No. 1357 of 2001 (O&M).
Aishwarya Bhati, Vishwajit, Ms. W. V. T. Sangama, Advs. for
the Appellants.
P. P. Nayak, Ajay Pal, Ms. Bhupinder, Ms. Vandana M. Hooda,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 High
Court 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’s
vehicle”.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
323
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,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.