Police records constitute reliable presumptive evidence of vehicle involvement absent rebuttal evidence.

On 18 October 2002, Jashwantsinh Chhatrasinh Chauhan was walking along the roadside between Moti Samal Devi and Kalol when he was allegedly struck from behind by truck No. GJ-17-T-8790, causing fatal injuries during treatment at SSG Hospital, Vadodara.

A telephonic report was made at Kalol Police Station, followed by registration of an offence and filing of a charge-sheet against the truck driver.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal at Godhra, in MACP No. 127 of 2003, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,01,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The insurer appealed, contending that the truck was not involved in the accident, that the driver had been falsely implicated, and that the accident was fictitious.

The insurer relied on an eyewitness statement and an investigation report but did not examine the driver to substantiate its defence.

The Court applied the principle that claims in motor accident proceedings are determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt; strict proof of the precise manner of the accident is not required.

Relying on Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, the Court held that filing of a charge-sheet against the vehicle driver prima facie supports the driver’s involvement and negligence, and that even a criminal acquittal would not necessarily defeat a motor accident claim.

Following Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510, the Court held that the Tribunal must take a holistic view of the evidence and may rely on police records where available.

It also relied on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, 2025 (2) SCC 599, which affirmed that FIRs, final reports, charge-sheets, and other police documents are admissible and relevant in motor accident claims, though not conclusive, particularly in the absence of rebuttal evidence.

The insurer’s principal defence was non-involvement of the truck, but it did not examine the driver, despite the driver having filed a written statement admitting the accident.

Consequently, the insurer failed to discharge the evidentiary burden of rebutting the vehicle’s involvement.

The FIR, panchnama, inquest panchnama, post-mortem report, charge-sheet, investigation materials, and the claimants’ consistent case collectively supported the occurrence of the accident and the truck’s involvement.

Applying the preponderance-of-probabilities standard and the principles in Mangla Ram, Mathew Alexander, and Rajani Sahoo, the Court held that these materials had presumptive and probative value and constituted reliable evidence in the absence of contrary evidence.

The insurer’s allegation of a fictitious accident was therefore unsupported and lacked merit.

The FIR, charge-sheet, and other police and claim records sufficiently supported the accident claim on a preponderance of probabilities.

The First Appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 6,01,000 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the petition until realization was affirmed.

Any interim relief was vacated.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount with accrued interest to the claimant after due verification, subject to deduction of court fees where applicable, and to return the record and proceedings.