The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that insurance companies cannot escape liability under motor vehicle insurance policies by making speculative assertions about the deceased’s position at the time of an accident, absent credible evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that claims tribunals must be allowed to rely on properly appreciated evidence, even in the absence of eyewitnesses, when the record supports a finding of liability.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a fatal road accident on 20 December 2018 involving a tractor (MP 41 AA 5350) driven by respondent No. 4. The deceased, Ramesh, was struck and killed while allegedly walking on the road near village Tappa. The claimants, including his widow Shardabai, filed a compensation claim before the Claims Tribunal seeking damages under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Procedural History
- 20 December 2018: Fatal accident occurred involving tractor and deceased Ramesh.
- 2022: Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 8,93,328/- with 6% interest from the date of claim filing.
- 2022: Appellant insurance company filed appeal before the High Court, challenging the award on grounds that the deceased was a passenger on the tractor.
- 27 January 2026: High Court heard arguments and dismissed the appeal.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the award, arguing that the deceased was sitting on the tractor trolley at the time of the accident, thereby excluding coverage under the policy. The respondents sought confirmation of the Tribunal’s award.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an insurance company can avoid liability under a motor vehicle policy by alleging the deceased was a passenger on the vehicle, when no credible evidence supports that claim and the claimants’ testimony remains uncontradicted.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel contended that the deceased was seated on the tractor trolley as a passenger, which, under the policy terms, excluded coverage. He argued that no eyewitness had testified to the claimants’ version and that the Tribunal failed to consider this material fact. He relied on the deposition of NW-1, Rahul Mudada, who initially stated the deceased was on the tractor, to suggest the claimants’ version was unreliable.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel submitted that the claimants’ testimony - particularly that of PW-1 (Shardabai) and PW-2 (Ambaram) - was consistent, credible, and unimpeached in cross-examination. He produced the FIR and criminal case records, which contained no suggestion that the deceased was on the tractor. He emphasized that the law does not require eyewitnesses in every case and that the burden to disprove the claimants’ version lay with the insurer, which failed to discharge it.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence, particularly the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, and the cross-examination of NW-1. It noted that while NW-1 claimed the deceased was on the tractor, he admitted under cross-examination that he was not an eyewitness. The Court held that such hearsay testimony cannot override direct, unchallenged evidence from the claimants.
"Even though the witness has deposed that deceased was travelling on tractor trolley as passenger and when it tumbled down, he was crushed under the offending vehicle... it has come to fore in the cross-examination that he was not eyewitness, therefore, statement given in the examination-in-chief cannot be taken on its face value."
The Court further observed that the FIR and criminal case records, duly certified and admitted as Ex.P/2, contained no indication that the deceased was a passenger. The insurer had adduced no independent evidence to rebut the claimants’ version. The Court emphasized that evidence appreciation by the Claims Tribunal is entitled to substantial deference, especially where findings are based on credible oral testimony and documentary corroboration.
The Court rejected the notion that the mere possibility of the deceased being a passenger could absolve the insurer. It held that liability under motor insurance arises unless the insurer proves exclusionary facts with clear, credible evidence - a burden not discharged here.
The Verdict
The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the Claims Tribunal’s award of Rs. 8,93,328/- with interest. The core holding is that an insurer cannot evade liability based on speculative or uncorroborated allegations; the burden lies on the insurer to prove exclusionary facts, and mere denial without evidence is insufficient.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Evidence and FIRs Carry Weight
- Practitioners must prioritize obtaining certified copies of FIRs and criminal case records in accident claims.
- Where the FIR is silent on passenger status, insurers cannot rely on post-accident speculation to deny liability.
Eyewitness Requirement Is Not Absolute
- Claimants need not produce eyewitnesses to establish liability; credible testimony from family members or bystanders suffices if unchallenged.
- Insurers must produce affirmative evidence to rebut such testimony, not merely cast doubt.
Burden of Proof Rests on the Insurer for Exclusions
- The burden to prove exclusionary conditions under a motor insurance policy lies squarely on the insurer.
- Generic denials or unverified statements from non-eyewitnesses will not suffice to overturn tribunal awards.
- Practitioners should structure arguments around evidentiary gaps in the insurer’s case, not just the claimants’ version.
