Unproved FIR contents cannot override substantive evidence proving negligence in motor accident claims.

On 19 December 2008, Upinder Kumar was driving car No. HP-33A-6465 near Bindrabani Bridge, Mandi, when tanker No. HP-34A-1565, driven by respondent No. 2, collided with the car.

The claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries, was initially taken to Zonal Hospital, Mandi, and thereafter referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he underwent surgery.

He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹30,00,000.

The driver and owner alleged that the accident occurred due to the claimant’s negligence, while the Insurance Company disputed liability, questioned the validity of the driving licence and alleged breach of the insurance policy.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded ₹2,06,745 with interest at 7.5% per annum and directed the insurer to indemnify the award.

The Insurance Company challenged the award under Section 173 of the Act, principally contending that the claimant himself was negligent, as allegedly reflected in the FIR.

Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tanker No. HP-34A-1565, rather than due to the claimant’s own negligence?

Whether the FIR, which allegedly attributed negligence to the claimant, was sufficient to displace the claimant’s evidence and justify interference with the Tribunal’s finding of negligence?

Whether the Tribunal’s award directing the insurer to indemnify the compensation required interference in appeal?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation and appeals against awards, respectively.

In motor accident claims, negligence is assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and claimants are not required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, as held in Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530, Kusum Lata v. Satbir, (2011) 3 SCC 646, Bimla Devi v. Satbir Singh, (2013) 14 SCC 345, and Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510.

An FIR and police papers are not substantive evidence and ordinarily serve to corroborate or contradict testimony; where the informant is not examined, the evidentiary value of the FIR is substantially weakened.

Further, where evidence recorded before the Tribunal conflicts with the FIR, reliable evidence before the Tribunal may be preferred, as held in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari, (2021) 18 SCC 596.

The claimant testified that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the tanker driver.

Although the FIR showed the claimant as an accused and allegedly attributed negligence to him, its author/informant, Neeraj, was not examined by the Insurance Company.

The Court therefore held that the FIR could not, by itself, establish the manner of the accident or the claimant’s negligence.

The claimant’s testimony had to be read as a whole: he denied negligence, explained that he had become unconscious after the accident, and stated that the FIR had been lodged by the other side.

Applying the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities and relying on the oral evidence, including the evidence concerning the tanker’s involvement and the testimony of the eyewitness, the Court found the tanker driver responsible for the accident.

The alleged inconsistency between the FIR and the evidence recorded before the Tribunal did not warrant rejecting the latter, particularly when the FIR author was not produced and the criminal case against the claimant ultimately resulted in his acquittal.

The Tribunal’s award of ₹2,06,745, together with interest at 7.5% per annum, and its direction requiring the insurer to indemnify the award were upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.