Supreme Court Restored Motor Accident Award, Set Aside High Court's Skepticism Over Eyewitness and FIR Delay

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal arising from a challenge to a Tribunal award in a motor accident claim. The petitioners — the wife and three minor children of a deceased peon — contested a High Court order that had set aside the Tribunal's compensation award on the ground that involvement of the offending vehicle was "suspect".

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and directed disbursal of the Tribunal award of Rs.46,29,152 with interest to the claimants within two months. The Court noted that the High Court had erred in disbelieving the eyewitness (PW-2) on the basis that he could not furnish certain vehicle details and that the FIR was lodged three months after the accident. The Court observed, "We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the High Court, therefore, we set aside the same." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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."

Background The deceased was employed as a peon in a school and died after the motorcycle he rode collided with a vehicle coming at high speed. The wife and three minor children filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs.46,29,152 (claimants had sought Rs.53,79,820). The insurance company appealed to the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal award, holding that the involvement of the offending vehicle was doubtful. The High Court relied on perceived inconsistencies in the eyewitness's deposition — including inability to state the vehicle colour and registration number details — and on the fact that the FIR was registered three months after the accident. The Tribunal, however, had relied on seizure of vehicle documents, the testimony of PW-2, and a Murg report produced as Annexure P-1 showing admission and death in hospital on the date of the accident.

The Supreme Court examined the record and held that the Murg report and subsequent FIR (Annexure P-2) established the occurrence of the accident and that delay in lodging the FIR did not, by itself, render the eyewitness testimony or the FIR unreliable, particularly where the insurer had not examined the investigating officer before the Tribunal. The Court directed the insurer to deposit the awarded amounts within the period stipulated before the Tribunal and required equal apportionment among the wife and three minor children. The Court further directed that, where any child had not attained majority, that child's share should be placed in a fixed deposit and the interest released to the mother as guardian. The appeal stood allowed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: Civil Appeal No…….of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No.13455 of 2023); 2025 INSC 823 Case Title: Sanju Bai Prajapati & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocates not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocates not indicated in the judgment]