Case Title: The Divisional Manager Shriram General Insurance Company Limited AND Yunus & Others
Summary
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police records will suffice to convince the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal that the claimant has established his case regarding injuries in an accident. The insurance company, Shriram General Insurance Company, challenged the validity of the judgment and award issued on August 30, 2017, which granted claim petitions submitted by Yunus and others. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that formal proof in the form of police records would suffice for the Tribunal to conclude that the claimant has established his case regarding the harm he sustained. The court rejected the appeal, finding no legal error or perversity in the Trial Court’s recording of those findings.
About the case
In the absence of substantial evidence suggesting active collusion between the injured party and the driver/owner of the negligent vehicle to file a fraudulent claim for compensation, the Karnataka High Court has ruled that police records will suffice to convince the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal that the claimant has established his case regarding sustaining injuries in the accident. The appeal lodged by Shriram General Insurance Company, which challenged the validity of the judgment and award issued on August 30, 2017, which granted the claim petitions submitted by Yunus and others, was dismissed by a single judge bench led by Justice V Srishananda. The corresponding grants were for Rs. 77,350 and Rs. 1,19,050, respectively. The insurance company argued that no eyewitnesses were present during the occurrence.
The ruling of the Supreme Court in Anita Sharma et al. v. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, which pertained to the burden of proof in motor accident claim cases, was relied upon. The bench noted that it is generally straightforward to obtain eyewitness testimony regarding an accident that occurs in a bustling or urban environment. However, in situations where the accident transpired in a rural area or on a relatively quiet road, obtaining an eyewitness becomes an exceedingly challenging endeavor for multiple reasons. “Initially, individuals who observed the accident may not have been motivated to initiate legal proceedings under criminal law.” Furthermore, even if individuals were to arrive to assist the injured, they might choose not to inform the police due to their prior encounters with the investigating agency or a general perception they have of the police, the document continued.
Under such conditions, the Court ruled, it is implausible to require the presence of an eyewitness in every case. Therefore, it was determined as follows: “In the absence of evidence that compels the court to conclude that the injured parties, the vehicle’s owner, and the driver actively conspired to deceive the insurance company into paying out a fictitious claim for compensation by falsely implicating the vehicle, formal proof in the form of police records would suffice for the Tribunal to conclude that the claimant has established his case regarding the harm he sustained.” The court rejected the appeal, stating, “Upon analyzing the evidence presented, the Tribunal has considered the police records and, in the absence of any compelling reasons that would suggest active collusion between the claimants and the owner or driver of the TATA ACE vehicle, has granted the claim petitions.” Upon careful reevaluation of the evidence presented, this Court continues to find no legal error or perversity in the Trial Court’s recording of those findings.
