A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar (since retired) and Rajesh Bindal said it is not impermissible for the tribunal to look into police records to decide upon negligence.

 

"There can be no dispute with respect to the position that the question regarding negligence which is essential for passing an award in a motor vehicle accident claim should be considered based on the evidence available before the Tribunal. If the police records are available before the Tribunal, taking note of the purpose of the Act it cannot be said that looking into such documents for the aforesaid purpose is impermissible or inadmissible," the bench said.

 

The court dismissed an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd against the Orissa High Court's judgment which upheld the Tribunal's order to pay a compensation of award for Rs 6,77,164 along with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the family of Udaynath Sahoo, who died due to injuries after being hit an insured truck on April 27, 2019.

 

The appellant insurance company contended that the accident had occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased and not at all by the driver of the offending truck.

 

The core contention of the appellant was that the Tribunal as also the High Court relied on the "fraudulent charge sheet" prepared by the respondents in connivance with the police.

 

In short, the appellant contended that the High Court erred in relying on the chargesheet to arrive at the conclusion that the accident in question in which Udayanath Sahoo lost his life had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck insured with the appellant.

 

The respondent (the wife of the deceased) submitted that there was absolutely no illegality in relying on such documents consisting of FIR and the final report prepared in relation to the accident in question by the police, for the purpose of considering the question of negligence in a motor vehicle accident case. That apart, they also contended that the appellant had attributed connivance with the police, but failed to prove it. They submitted that the appeal was devoid of merit, which was liable to be dismissed.

 

With regard to the reliability of charge sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, the bench pointed out, the court in the case of Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd and Ors (2018), has held that filing of charge-sheet prima facie points towards complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused are to be acquitted in the criminal case, the court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal. 

 

"It is true that the Tribunal had looked into the oral and documentary evidence including the FIR, final report and such other documents prepared by the police in connection with the accident in question.

The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that based on the final report, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty for rash and negligent driving. The High Court took note of such aspects and found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Tribunal and consequently dismissed the appeal," the bench noted.

 

Citing Mathew Alexander Vs Mohammed Shafi & Anr (2023), the bench pointed out, that the top court held that a holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.

 

In the case, the bench said the appellant had attributed that the respondent claimants connived with police and fraudulently prepared the charge sheet. The contention was that the vehicle insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident and the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligence on the part of the deceased.

 

"But the evidence on record would reveal that pursuant to the filing of the final report, cognizance was taken for rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of Udayanath Sahoo," the bench said.

 

The court, having noted the concurrent findings, did not find perversity in impunged judgment, warranting its interference.