Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 823
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…….…….of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.13455 of 2023)
SANJU BAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The wife and three minor children of the deceased in a
motor accident are before us, assailing the order of the High
Court which found the involvement of the offending vehicle
to be suspect. The award of the Tribunal was hence set aside,
disentitling the claimants from any compensation.
3. The deceased was working as a Peon in a school and
while he was returning home, the motorcycle which he was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.07.14
15:48:04 IST
Reason:
riding hit a vehicle coming at a very high speed and the rider,
Page 1 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
injured grievously, was taken to the hospital where he
succumbed to the injuries. The wife and three minor children
raised a claim before the Tribunal, which was allowed,
granting total compensation of Rs.46,29,152/-. The appellants
though had claimed a compensation of Rs.53,79,820/-, did not
file an appeal from the award. The insurance company filed
an appeal which was allowed against which the claimants
have come before this Court.
4. The contention taken by the insurance company was
that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the
accident, especially on the ground that the FIR was
registered three months after the accident. It was also
contended that the driver did not have a driving license, and
the vehicle did not have a permit to be used as a transport
vehicle.
5. The Tribunal found that the documents of the vehicle
were seized by the police and there is nothing to indicate any
violation of conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal
also found that an eyewitness was examined as PW-2 who had
categorically stated about the accident, which he witnessed.
Page 2 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
6. The High Court, on an appeal by the insurance
company, picked holes in the deposition of the eyewitness;
according to us without just cause. The fact that he could not
speak on the details of the vehicle, like color and registration
number was held to be crucial. The deposition of PW-2 that
the registration of the offending vehicle was written in black
color on a white background was disbelieved on the ground
that the offending vehicle was a commercial one in which the
number plate is written in white on a yellow background. The
fact that the FIR was registered after three months was also an
additional factor to disbelieve the evidence of the
eyewitness, was the finding.
7. 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
Page 3 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
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.
8. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the
High Court, therefore, we set aside the same. The amounts,
with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal shall be disbursed
to the claimants within a period of two months, which shall be
equally apportioned in the name of the wife and three minor
children. If any of the minor children have not attained
majority, the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit, the
interest of which can be disbursed to the mother who is the
guardian. The insurance company shall deposit the amounts
within the period stipulated before the Tribunal and the
Page 4 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
Tribunal shall apportion the amounts as directed
hereinabove.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
...……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 14, 2025.
Page 5 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No…….…….of 2025
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.13455 of 2023)
SANJU BAI PRAJAPATI & ORS.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
LTD. & ORS.
RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The wife and three minor children of the deceased in a
motor accident are before us, assailing the order of the High
Court which found the involvement of the offending vehicle
to be suspect. The award of the Tribunal was hence set aside,
disentitling the claimants from any compensation.
3. The deceased was working as a Peon in a school and
while he was returning home, the motorcycle which he was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.07.14
15:48:04 IST
Reason:
riding hit a vehicle coming at a very high speed and the rider,
Page 1 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
injured grievously, was taken to the hospital where he
succumbed to the injuries. The wife and three minor children
raised a claim before the Tribunal, which was allowed,
granting total compensation of Rs.46,29,152/-. The appellants
though had claimed a compensation of Rs.53,79,820/-, did not
file an appeal from the award. The insurance company filed
an appeal which was allowed against which the claimants
have come before this Court.
4. The contention taken by the insurance company was
that the alleged offending vehicle was not involved in the
accident, especially on the ground that the FIR was
registered three months after the accident. It was also
contended that the driver did not have a driving license, and
the vehicle did not have a permit to be used as a transport
vehicle.
5. The Tribunal found that the documents of the vehicle
were seized by the police and there is nothing to indicate any
violation of conditions of the insurance policy. The Tribunal
also found that an eyewitness was examined as PW-2 who had
categorically stated about the accident, which he witnessed.
Page 2 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
6. The High Court, on an appeal by the insurance
company, picked holes in the deposition of the eyewitness;
according to us without just cause. The fact that he could not
speak on the details of the vehicle, like color and registration
number was held to be crucial. The deposition of PW-2 that
the registration of the offending vehicle was written in black
color on a white background was disbelieved on the ground
that the offending vehicle was a commercial one in which the
number plate is written in white on a yellow background. The
fact that the FIR was registered after three months was also an
additional factor to disbelieve the evidence of the
eyewitness, was the finding.
7. 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
Page 3 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
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.
8. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the order of the
High Court, therefore, we set aside the same. The amounts,
with interest, as awarded by the Tribunal shall be disbursed
to the claimants within a period of two months, which shall be
equally apportioned in the name of the wife and three minor
children. If any of the minor children have not attained
majority, the amount shall be kept in a fixed deposit, the
interest of which can be disbursed to the mother who is the
guardian. The insurance company shall deposit the amounts
within the period stipulated before the Tribunal and the
Page 4 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023
Tribunal shall apportion the amounts as directed
hereinabove.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
...……….……………………. J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 14, 2025.
Page 5 of 5
CA @ SLP (C) No.13455 of 2023