After Postmortem Listed Dead Man As Rider, Karnataka HC Sends Family’s Rejected Crash Claim Back For Pillion-Rider Evidence

The appellants, the widow and minor children of Jagadeesh A., sought compensation for his death in a motorcycle accident on 4 October 2022.

They pleaded that Jagadeesh was a pillion rider and that Modlagiriyappa was riding the motorcycle.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, relying on the postmortem report, which recorded that Jagadeesh was the rider.

On appeal, the claimants sought leave under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce Forms 146(i) and 146(ii), which they said recorded that Jagadeesh was a pillion rider.

They sought a remand to prove those documents through the Investigating Officer and the doctor who conducted the postmortem.

The claimants invoked Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to seek leave to produce additional evidence.

The Court treated the relevance of the proposed documents to disposal of the claim petition as decisive: Forms 146(i) and 146(ii) were relevant because they could explain the source of the postmortem report’s entry, on which the Tribunal had relied.

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The judgment cited no precedent and did not set out a broader test for admitting additional evidence.

The record contained conflicting accounts of who was riding the motorcycle.

The FIR, charge sheet and inquest mahazar identified Modlagiriyappa as the rider and Jagadeesh as the pillion passenger, whereas the postmortem report stated that Jagadeesh was riding.

Because the Tribunal relied on the postmortem report in dismissing the claim, the police forms supplied to the doctor were relevant to explaining that discrepancy.

The Court therefore allowed their production and concluded that the claimants should be permitted to prove them through further evidence.

The insurer was also permitted to lead further evidence; the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1 December 2026.

The Court did not decide the claim’s merits.