ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus PREMLATA SHUKLA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 780 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
A 
ORIENT AL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
-1 
v. 
PREMLATA SHUKLA AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 : 
. ,. .. 
c 
s.166-Co/lision between two vehicles-The vehicle against which FIR 
was lodged could not be traced out-Claim petition filed against the driver, 
the owner and insurer of the vehicle on which de.:eased was travelling-
Held, proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle 
is sine qua non for maintaining an application uls 166-F actum of accident 
could also be proved from FIR-A party objecting to admissibility of a 
D document must raise its objection at appropriate time-Once the document 
is allowed to be exhibited with consent, it cannot be said that the same 
should not be relied upon-Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition-
Evidence-Evidentiary value of an exhibited document. 
~ 
In an accident as a result of collision between a truck and a Tempo Trax, 
E one person traveling in the tempo trax died. The case u/s 304-A IPC registered 
against the driver of the truck was closed as the truck could not be traced 
out. The claim petition filed against the driver, the owner and the insurer of 
the Tempo Trax was dismissed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims 
Tribunal holding that the driver of the Tempo Trax was not driving the vehicle 
F 
rashly and negligently. In the appeal, the High Court opined that the driver of 
the Tempo Trax should be held guilty of driving rashly and negligently. 
. ... 
In the instant appeal filed by the Insurance Company it was contended 
-( 
for the appellant that since the respondents themselves relied on the first 
information report, the High Court could not have ignored the same. On behalf 
G of the respondents it was contended that merely because the first information 
report was relied upon for the purpose of proving the accident and not for 
fixing the liability on the part of the driver of the vehicle the contents thereof 
ipso facto could not be said to have been proved. 
~ ) 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
780 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD . .-. PREMLATA SHUKLA 
781 
)-
HELD: 1.1. Respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the A 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was required to be determined.in accordance 
with the procedures laid down therefor. Proof of rashness and negligence on 
the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining 
an application under Section 166 of the Act. 
(Para 8 and IOI (784-A, GI B 
Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 
Baroda, (20041 5 SCC 385 and Kaushnuma Begum & Ors. v. New India 
..., . 
Assurance, (2001) ACJ 428: (200112 SCC 9, referred to . 
'.). 
1.2. It is true that contents of a document are not automatically proved c 
only because the same is marked an Exhibit. However, the factum of an 
accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. It is also to 
be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, 
the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to tum round and 
contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been 
proved. It was marked as an Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon D 
them. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the Tribunal cannot 
be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, 
irrespective of the contents of the document having been proved or not. If the 
~ 
contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a 
part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had E 
not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise. 
(Para 12, 13 and 14) (785-A, B, C, DJ 
1.3. A party objecting to the admissibility of a document must raise its 
objection at the appropriate time. If the objection is not raised and the 
document is allowed to be marked and that too at the instance of a party which F 
had proved the same and where for consent of the other party has been obtained, 
,, .. 
the former cannot be permitted to turn round and raise a contention that the 
~ 
contents of the documents bad not been proved and, thus, should not be relied 
upon. In this view of tbe matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained 
and is set aside. [Para 15 and 16) (785-E; 786-CI 
G 
Hukam Singh and Ors. v. Smt. Udham Kaur, (1969) PLR 908, relied on. 
~· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 

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