Supreme Court Restores MACT Finding of Fatal Hit‑and‑Run, Affirms Compensation but Modifies Apportionment

A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar heard an appeal arising from a Section 166 claim under the Motor Vehicles Act in which the insurers of an offending mini‑truck challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award and the High Court’s subsequent allowance of the insurer’s appeal. The central issue was whether the fatal collision that resulted in the death of the motorcyclist was caused by the offending Ape pick‑up vehicle and whether the insurer was liable to indemnify the claimants.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which had dismissed the claim petition, and restored the tribunal’s finding that the accident and consequent death were caused by the offending vehicle. The Court affirmed the compensation of Rs.12,43,324 awarded by the tribunal with interest at 6% per annum, declined to enhance the award, but modified the apportionment of the award to allocate 85% to the wife and 15% among the three children in the ratio of 5:5:5. The Court emphasised the probative value of the injured claimants’ evidence and the failure of the insurer to prove the contents of a police statement relied upon by the High Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “...PW‑1 has deposed that she was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by her deceased husband and said vehicle was hit by a mini truck from hindside resulting in both PW‑1 and the deceased falling down and deceased having sustained grievous injuries. The evidence tendered before the tribunal particularly Ex.P‑02 (MLC …), Ex.P‑06 i.e., death report, Ex.P‑07 death information sent to the police station … Ex.P‑08 FIR, Ex.P‑11 i.e., the final report would clearly indicate that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle namely mini truck. ... The jurisdictional police who had recorded the statement (Ex‑D1) of PW‑2 was not examined. No attempts have been made by the insurer … to prove the contents of Ex‑D1. This is yet another reason as to why the findings recorded by the High Court in this regard cannot be sustained.” The Court further noted that “PW‑1, the wife of the deceased who was the pillion rider was the best witness.”

Background The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 seeking Rs.1,88,08,448/- after Nathuram Ahirwar (driver of a motorcycle) was allegedly struck from behind by an Ape pick‑up (Regn. MP‑04 GB 5604) on 24.09.2021 and later died on 01.10.2021. The insurer contended that the deceased lost balance and fell on his own and alleged collusion between claimants and the driver of the Ape; it also submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid licence. The driver of the offending vehicle was proceeded against ex parte before the tribunal. At the tribunal, PW‑1 (the deceased’s wife) and PW‑2 (a son) testified and 48 documents (Ex.P‑1 to P‑48) were produced; the insurer did not examine any witness and produced three documents.

The tribunal found that the offending vehicle caused the accident and awarded Rs.12,43,324/- plus interest @6% p.a. The High Court allowed the insurer’s appeal primarily on two grounds: PW‑2 had allegedly told police that the deceased fell due to loss of balance, and PW‑1 admitted she had not seen the registration number of the offending vehicle, while the relative who claimed to have seen it was not examined. The Supreme Court, on review of the record, held that the High Court erred in disbelieving PW‑1 and in placing decisive reliance on an unproved police statement (Ex‑D1) said to have been recorded from PW‑2. The Court observed that the police who recorded Ex‑D1 were not examined and that the insurer made no attempt to prove its contents; the Court also noted the existence of hospital records, FIR and chargesheet arising from the police investigation. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court order, restored the tribunal’s finding of liability, affirmed the quantum, and adjusted apportionment as set out above. No order as to costs was made.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 837 (Civil Appeal / Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25092 of 2024) Case Title: Suhagrani and Others v. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Counsel not specified in the judgment) For the Respondent(s): (Counsel not specified in the judgment)