Charge-sheet and criminal conviction sufficiently establish vehicle involvement and negligence despite conflicting details in the FIR.

on 08.07.1998, a 12-year-old boy named Gangaram was killed when a jeep struck his bicycle

The claimant filed for compensation, and the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bastar, awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- with 9% interest, fastening primary liability on the Appellant insurance company

The Appellant challenged this award, contending that the First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P-1) initially identified a different vehicle (MP25/5222) than the one eventually charge-sheeted and insured by them (MP-25/B/0905)

The eyewitness (AW-2) explained that the initial vehicle number provided in the FIR was based on hearsay from persons at a toll barrier, whereas the police investigation subsequently identified the correct offending vehicle

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability upon the insurance company despite the discrepancy regarding the vehicle registration number between the FIR and the charge-sheet?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, regarding the maintainability of appeals against awards

It relied on Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code regarding death by negligence

The Court applied the evidentiary principle established by the Supreme Court in Ranjeet & Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. (2025), which holds that once a charge-sheet is filed and a driver is held negligent, the charge-sheet itself serves as sufficient evidence of negligence, and the absence of further eyewitness testimony is not fatal to the claim

The Court analyzed the evidentiary value of the police investigation versus the initial FIR. It noted that the FIR was lodged based on speculative information received from third parties at a toll barrier, which the eyewitness (AW-2) clarified during his testimony

Conversely, the police investigation resulted in a seizure memo (Ex.P-4) for vehicle MP-25/B/0905 and a charge-sheet identifying Sanjay Kashyap as the negligent driver

Crucially, the Court observed that the driver had already been convicted under Section 304-A of the IPC by a Judicial Magistrate in 2000, which corroborated the vehicle’s involvement

The Court reasoned that since the insurance company failed to examine the investigating officer or the driver to rebut these findings, or prove any breach of policy conditions, the Tribunal’s reliance on the charge-sheet and criminal conviction was legally sound

The Court affirmed that the involvement of the offending vehicle was sufficiently proved by the charge-sheet and the criminal court's judgment of conviction

Consequently, the insurance company remains liable to pay the awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- plus interest