Oral Evidence Prevails Over Contradictory FIR Statements in Determining Contributory Negligence Under MACP

On July 25, 2003, the claimant was riding a motorcycle when he was involved in an accident with a Tata Sumo.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Vadodara, awarded Rs. 9,96,870 with 9% interest, holding the driver of the Tata Sumo 70% negligent and the motorcycle rider 30% negligent.

The Insurance Company appealed, primarily challenging the apportionment of negligence, arguing that according to the FIR lodged by the pillion rider, the motorcycle hit the Tata Sumo from behind while trying to overtake.

An independent eyewitness and the Sumo driver’s own testimony indicated the Sumo was behind or overtaking the motorcycle.

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in attributing 70% contributory negligence to the driver of the Tata Sumo based on a contradiction between the FIR and oral testimony.

2. Whether the oral evidence led before the Tribunal should prevail over the contents of the First Information Report (FIR) in determining negligence.

The court applied the law concerning contributory negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act.

If oral evidence recorded before a Tribunal is cogent and runs contrary to the contents of an FIR, the oral evidence must be given greater weightage.

The court examined the conflict between the FIR (which suggested the motorcycle rider was at fault while overtaking) and the oral evidence.

The claimant produced an independent eyewitness, Rajeshbhai Soni, who testified that the Tata Sumo hit the motorcycle from behind, and the driver of the Tata Sumo admitted in his own affidavit that the motorcycle was proceeding ahead of him.

Following the precedent in Chamundeswari, the court held that the Tribunal correctly prioritized the consistent oral testimonies of the eyewitness and the driver over the initial FIR.

The manner of the accident justified the Tribunal's finding that the Tata Sumo driver bore the larger share of responsibility (70%) for the collision.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s judgment, directing the Tribunal to disburse the awarded amount to the claimant after verifying court fees.