Eyewitness Not Vital in MACT Cases if FIR, Charge Sheet Filed: SC

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the absence of an eyewitness does not negate a finding of negligence, particularly when an FIR has been lodged and a charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran set aside the order of the High Court which allowed the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the claim petition for the reason of no eyewitness having been examined to prove rash and negligent driving by the accused.

The accident occurred on January 29, 2015 when the deceased was travelling pillion in a motorbike driven and owned by the second respondent. The FIR was lodged against the owner driver of the vehicle for the offence of rash and negligent driving.

A charge sheet was filed against the owner driver.

The owner driver thereby filed a written statement before the Tribunal denying accusations of rash and negligent driving on his part, however he did not mount the box to depose that it was not due to his fault that the accident occurred.

"As far as examining the eyewitness, such a witness will not be available in all cases. The FIR having been lodged and the charge sheet filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, we are of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established," the bench said.

In such circumstances, the bench opined that the order of the High Court must be set aside and that of the Tribunal be restored.

"We do not speak on the quantum, since there is no appeal filed by the claimants against the quantum as determined by the Tribunal," the bench added.

The court ordered that the amounts as directed by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition, as directed by the Tribunal, should be paid expeditiously by the insurance company.

Case Title: Meera Bai & Ors Vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd & Anr.