The Bombay High Court has underscored that in motor accident claims where conflicting evidence exists regarding the identity of the driver, the testimony of the Investigating Officer is not merely evidentiary but foundational to determining liability. This ruling reasserts the procedural imperative of securing all material witnesses before adjudicating claims under insurance policies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, heirs of the deceased Gajendrasing Jadhav, filed a motor accident claim petition seeking Rs. 70 lakh in compensation after he died in a road accident on 27 January 2012. The vehicle involved was a Maruti Ritz bearing MH-18-W-6158. The central dispute was whether Gajendrasing was the driver or merely an occupant, as the FIR initially named him as the driver, but the subsequent charge sheet named Lalit Ramchandra Chaudhary as the driver.
Procedural History
- 2012: Motor Accident Claim Petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule
- 2016: Tribunal dismissed the claim against both the alleged driver (Gajendrasing) and the insurance company, holding that Gajendrasing was a gratuitous driver and thus not covered under the policy
- 2017: First Appeal filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench
Relief Sought
The appellants sought remand of the case to the Tribunal to examine the testimony of the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet naming Lalit as the driver, and to reassess liability based on the actual circumstances of the accident.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can dismiss a compensation claim on the basis of an inconsistent FIR when a charge sheet and witness testimony point to a different driver, and whether the absence of the Investigating Officer’s testimony justifies rejection of the claim without affording the claimants a fair opportunity to prove the true facts.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in relying on the initial FIR, which was based on hearsay, while ignoring the charge sheet and the sworn testimony of Lalit Ramchandra Chaudhary, who admitted to driving. He emphasized that the Investigating Officer, having conducted the probe and filed the charge sheet, was the most credible witness to resolve the factual ambiguity. The failure to summon or compel his appearance violated the principles of natural justice and deprived the claimants of a fair hearing.
For the Respondent
The insurance company’s counsel conceded that the charge sheet named Lalit as the driver and acknowledged that the Investigating Officer was the best person to clarify the discrepancy. He did not oppose remand, stating that the Tribunal’s reliance on the FIR alone was legally unsustainable in light of the subsequent investigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Tribunal’s decision was based on a superficial reading of the FIR and failed to reconcile it with the charge sheet and the deposition of Lalit. The Court emphasized that the identity of the driver is not a mere technicality but a determinative factor in insurance liability, particularly under the Motor Vehicles Act, where coverage hinges on whether the driver was authorized, paid, or acting with the owner’s consent.
"The Investigating Officer, having conducted the probe and filed the charge sheet, is the best person to clarify the ambiguity regarding the identity of the driver. His absence from the proceedings renders the Tribunal’s finding on liability speculative and legally untenable."
The Court held that the Tribunal’s decision to proceed without summoning the Investigating Officer, despite two issued summons, amounted to a denial of natural justice. The Court further noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur or presumption of negligence cannot override the need for direct evidence when conflicting official records exist. The Tribunal’s conclusion that Gajendrasing was a gratuitous driver was premature without establishing who was actually operating the vehicle.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded. The Court held that the identity of the driver must be conclusively established through the testimony of the Investigating Officer, and remanded the case to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal was directed to summon the officer and decide the claim within six months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Investigating Officer’s Testimony Is Indispensable
- Practitioners must now insist on summoning the Investigating Officer in all motor accident claims where the driver’s identity is disputed
- Failure to secure such testimony may render the Tribunal’s award liable to be set aside on appeal
- The burden is on the claimant to request the summons; courts will not presume its necessity unless raised
Insurance Liability Turns on Driver Status
- If the actual driver is not the insured or authorized person, the insurer may avoid liability
- However, if the driver is proven to be the owner’s agent or with implied consent, coverage may still apply
- Claimants must now plead and prove the driver’s relationship to the vehicle owner as a distinct issue
Procedural Fairness Overrides Technical Defects
- Tribunals cannot dismiss claims based on preliminary FIRs when later evidence contradicts them
- The principle of audi alteram partem requires that all material witnesses be heard before a final determination
- Courts will not uphold findings based on incomplete or contradictory records without a full evidentiary hearing
