Substantive evidence recorded before the Court prevails over contradictory statements in the FIR.

The appellant Insurance Company challenged the award dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, in Claim Case No. 34/2017.

The Tribunal had awarded ₹8,12,696/- as compensation with interest to the claimants for the death of Sumitra Bai, fastening liability on the appellant as the insurer of the offending tractor.

The appellant contended that according to the First Information Report (FIR), the deceased was traveling as a gratuitous passenger on the tractor, which would exempt the insurer from liability.

Conversely, the claimants asserted that the deceased was a pedestrian at the time of the accident.

1. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger or a pedestrian, and whether the Insurance Company could be held liable for compensation based on the discrepancy between the FIR and oral testimony.

The Court primary exercised its jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It further relied on the legal principle established by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari and others (2021) 18 SCC 596, which holds that evidence and statements made before a Court carry greater evidentiary value than conflicting statements recorded in an FIR.

The Court reviewed the Claims Tribunal's finding that the deceased, Sumitra Bai, was a pedestrian and not a passenger on the tractor.

This finding was based on the oral testimony of the eye-witness, Rajendra Kumar (AW-1), who is the husband of the deceased.

The Court addressed the appellant’s reliance on the FIR by applying the precedent in National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari, noting that the sworn statement made by the eye-witness before the Tribunal must be preferred over the contents of the FIR.

Since the testimony established the deceased's status as a pedestrian, the Court found that the Tribunal correctly allowed the claim application and fastened liability on the insurer.

The Court upheld the Tribunal's award of ₹8,12,696/- plus interest, affirming that the deceased was a pedestrian and not a gratuitous passenger.

No costs were awarded.