Bombay High Court
Smt. Sushma Wd/O Suresh Sonone And ... vs Pradeep S/O Manikchand Sancheti And ... on 12 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14235
fa 152-2011.odt 1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.152/2011
1. Smt. Sushma wd/o Suresh
Sonone, Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Household Work,
R/o Goverdhan, Tq. Risod,
Distt. Washim.
2. Ku. Vaishanavi D/o Suresh
Sonone, Aged about 3 years,
Minor by guardian Mother
Appellant No.1, R/o Goverdhan,
Tq. Risod, Distt. Washim.
... APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1. Pradeep S/o Manikchand
Sancheti, Adult,
Occ: Vehicle Owner,
R/o Goverdhan, Tq. Risod,
Distt. Washim.
2. The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Through its Divisional
Manager, Divisional Office, Near,
Rayat Haweli Building,
Old Cotton Market, Akola.
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S.D. Chande, Advocate for appellants
Shri M.B. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATED : 02.12.2025
fa 152-2011.odt 2/11
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. By way of present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.258/2007 dated 25.10.2010, whereby the application for compensation under Section 163-A was dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case, which are necessary to decide the present appeal, are as under:
The appellant herein has filed the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act before the Claim Tribunal, whereby they stated that deceased was in the employment of respondent No.1 as a Driver and getting salary of Rs.3000/- per month with additional allowances to maintain his family. On 16.10.2007, at about 1.30 a.m. in the night, the deceased was driving the truck as a Driver from Pankanhergaon towards Gowardhana. Near Nizampur Fata, the truck turned turtle below the road in the ditch and resulted into the accident. According to them, due to this accident, deceased has sustained fatal injuries and deceased died fa 152-2011.odt 3/11 on the spot. The police authority has registered offence vide Crime No.172/2007 and during the investigation, prepared the spot panchanama, inquest panchanama etc.
4. In view of the accident which was occurred on 16.10.2007, the appellants have filed the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation. According to them, under Section 163-A, there is no need to prove the rash and negligence of the driver for an accident, the claimants are entitled to get compensation in the matter. In such proceedings, it is not necessary to find out who was at fault, for deciding the application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thereby claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
5. The owner as well as respondent- Insurance Company appeared before the Claim Tribunal. The owner of the vehicle has filed his written statement on record. According to the owner of the vehicle, on the date of incident, i.e. on 16.10.2007, the deceased Suresh was in his employment as a driver of the truck. fa 152-2011.odt 4/11
6. The respondent no.2- Insurance Company in their written statement has taken a defence that the driver/deceased was responsible for the accident and he was not paid driver of the truck in question and not a third party, consequently not a victim, rather he is tortfeasor, so the claim is not tenable.
7. In light of the pleadings and written statements of the parties, on behalf of the appellant, Mrs. Sushama Sonone, entered into the witness box and specifically stated that the deceased at the time of accident was of 35 years of age and working as a Driver with respondent No.1/employer. According to her, he was earning Rs.3000/- per month. It was also stated that on the day of accident, the truck was duly insured with respondent No.2 Insurance Company.
8. The respondent no.2 - Insurance Company though took a defence that the driver of the vehicle was not paid driver and responsible for the accident did not enter into the witness box nor examine any independent evidence before the Claim Tribunal, to establish that deceased was not paid driver of the vehicle. As such, evidence of appellant remained unchallenged in the matter. fa 152-2011.odt 5/11
9. In light of above said factual position, the learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the petition on the submission and evidence produced before him. The perusal of the judgment of the learned Tribunal shows that, the learned Tribunal has mainly relied upon the police case papers to draw the conclusion that, the driver of the vehicle was negligent and he being a tortfeasor not entitled for the compensation. In support of this, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur and another reported in 2008 ACJ 1280. Learned Tribunal has held that deceased who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and no other vehicle was involved in the accident, hence deceased was tortfeasor and thereby Insurance Company is not responsible to pay the compensation under the contract of indemnity or under the law of torts.
10. The appellant who is the original claimant challenged the judgment and order of the Claim Tribunal before this Court on the ground that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error by not considering the oral as well as documentary evidence fa 152-2011.odt 6/11 available on record. It is the submission of the appellant that the deceased was working as a driver with respondent No.1. The owner of the vehicle in his reply before the Claim Tribunal admitted the fact that the deceased was in his employment. So also, the appellant entered into the witness box and stated that fact on oath. In the cross-examination of this witness, nothing adverse was elicited from this witness. The cross-examination is only on the point of, whether he was earning Rs.3000/- per month or not. There is not even a suggestion to the aspect whether he was in employment of respondent No.1 or not.
11. The whole defence of the respondent-Insurance Company is on the basis of the police case papers. According to them, in the First Information Report and spot panchnama as well as inquest panchnama, it is clear that the deceased was responsible for the accident as no other vehicle involved in the accident and, therefore, on the basis of said document, it is held that the deceased who was plying the vehicle of the owner, is not entitled for any compensation.
fa 152-2011.odt 7/11
12. It will be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Murali and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 9 SCC 417, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the police case papers are not the substantive piece of evidence. What is the substantive evidence is what has been stated by the panchas or the person concerned in the witness box. Therefore, the documents which the appellant is relied upon unless proved before the Court through evidence cannot be accepted.
13. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jiju Kuruvila and others Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and others (2013) 9 SCC 166, has specifically dealt with this identical issue and recorded the finding in paragraph No. 20.5 as under:
"20.5. The mere position of the vehicles after accident, as shown in a scene mahazar, cannot give a substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of one or the other. When two vehicles coming from opposite directions collide, the position of the vehicles and its direction, etc. depends on a number of factors like the speed of vehicles, intensity of collision, reason for collision, place at which one vehicle hit the other, etc. From the scene of the accident, one may suggest or presume the manner in which the accident was caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. In fa 152-2011.odt 8/11 absence of such direct or corroborative evidence, the Court cannot give any specific finding about negligence on the part of any individual."
14. From this legal position, which was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that in the cases of accident, the rash and negligent driving on the part of the person cannot be interfered on the basis of such documents, which are necessary to be proved by any direct or corroborative evidence. In light of this legal position, I am of the opinion that the police case papers, which respondent is trying to rely upon, is not justified in the matter.
15. The submission of respondent-Insurance Company is that in the case of HDFC Chubb General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shantidevi Rajbalsingh Thakur and another 2007 SCC OnLine Bom 592, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the owner or person plying the vehicle found to be negligent, then he comes into the category of tortfeasor and, thereby, he is not entitled for the compensation. This legal position is not disputed. But for that purpose, it is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to establish on record by independent evidence that the fa 152-2011.odt 9/11 person who was driving the vehicle was either borrower or the owner of the vehicle. Unless this fact is proved beyond doubt, the Insurance Company cannot be given the benefit of the same.
16. Respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rattani and others, (2009) 2 SCC 75, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that, "we are not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily an allegation made in FIR would not be admissible in evidence per se but as the allegation made in the FIR had been made a part of claim Petition, then Courts would be entitled to look into the same." But, here as I already hold that such evidence must be corroborated by further evidence. In present case in absence of any corroborative evidence, I am not agree with the submission of Respondent No.2 that on the basis of only Police Case papers conclusion be drawn that deceased was negligent in driving the vehicle or tortfeasor.
17. In the present matter, appellant has entered into witness box and categorically stated that deceased was paid driver fa 152-2011.odt 10/11 with the owner of the vehicle. So also, owner of vehicle categorically admitted in his written statement that deceased was driver on vehicle. Hence, appellant has brought sufficient material on record to enable the Court to arrive at a conclusion that deceased was not the tortfeasor. He was paid driver of vehicle. Hence, Insurance Company can not be absolved from it's responsibility.
18. In my opinion, the appellant has established on record before the Tribunal that he was the third party to the accident as he was working as a Driver of the vehicle and, therefore, the proceedings filed by him under Section 163-A was very much tenable. Hence, in view of this, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order passed by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal dated 25.10.2010 in MACP No. 258/2007 is hereby quashed and set aside.
fa 152-2011.odt 11/11
iii) The MACP No.258/2007 is remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola, to decide afresh on its own merits.
iv) The Claim Tribunal is requested to decide claim petition as expeditiously as possible as the accident in the present case is of 2007.
v) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 05.01.2026.
vi) The Registry is directed to transfer the record and proceedings of MACP No.258/2007 immediately to the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Akola.
vii) The First Appeal is disposed of in above terms. No order as to the costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) R.S. Sahare Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 15/12/2025 20:10:25