The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the absence of a witness from the police's final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. does not automatically disqualify their testimony in motor accident claims. The judgment clarifies that civil tribunals operate under a lower evidentiary threshold than criminal courts, and reliability, not formal listing, determines admissibility.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
On 9 January 2009, Moolchand Saanwle was fatally struck by a pick-up vehicle bearing registration number MP09-GE-3816 while walking near Bhagwanpura Joint. The driver fled the scene. A Merg intimation was registered the same night by Gulab Singh, a local chowkidar, who discovered the body. An F.I.R. under Section 304A IPC was filed 11 days later against an unknown driver, with the vehicle number only identified later during investigation.
Procedural History
- 9 January 2009: Accident occurs; Merg intimation registered at Manawar Police Station.
- 20 January 2009: F.I.R. registered under Section 304A IPC against unknown accused.
- 12 March 2009: Vehicle seized; seizure memo (Ex.P-5) recorded.
- 13 March 2009: Final report (Ex.P-1) filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., naming the driver and vehicle based on eyewitness accounts of Anil and Gajanand.
- 11 December 2009: Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,48,350/- to the deceased’s family, holding the insurance company liable.
- 2010: Both parties appealed - insurance company challenging liability, claimants seeking enhanced compensation.
Relief Sought
The insurance company sought dismissal of the claim, arguing the vehicle’s involvement was fabricated. The claimants sought enhancement of compensation, contending the Tribunal under-calculated income, future prospects, and loss-related damages.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a witness whose name is not included in the final police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. can still be relied upon in a motor accident claim proceeding, and whether the preponderance of probability standard permits such reliance if the testimony is credible and corroborated.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant (Insurance Company)
Counsel argued that Mukesh, the key eyewitness, was not listed in the final report (Ex.P-1), rendering his testimony inherently unreliable. He emphasized that the F.I.R. initially named an unknown driver, and Mukesh’s admission that he informed police of the vehicle number after knowing the deceased’s son suggested collusion. Reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. v. Setu Bai, Oriental Insurance Co. v. Kusum, and Karamchand v. Kishan Singh, where uncorroborated or suspicious testimony led to dismissal of claims.
For the Respondent (Claimants)
Counsel contended that the Tribunal correctly applied the preponderance of probability standard, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. He highlighted that Mukesh’s testimony was consistent with the police’s final report, which named Anil and Gajanand as eyewitnesses - individuals Mukesh identified as having witnessed the accident and recorded the vehicle number. Reliance was placed on Sunita & Others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, which held that the Motor Vehicles Act does not bar unlisted witnesses if cross-examination fails to discredit them.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of evidence required in motor accident claims, distinguishing it sharply from criminal trials. It held that while criminal proceedings demand proof beyond reasonable doubt, civil claims under the Motor Vehicles Act require only a preponderance of probability. The Court emphasized that the absence of a witness from the police list does not equate to unreliability.
"There is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act to preclude citing of witnesses in motor accident claims who have not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness concerned."
The Court noted that Mukesh’s testimony remained consistent under cross-examination. His statement that two individuals on a motorcycle behind him noted the vehicle number was corroborated by the inclusion of Anil and Gajanand in the final report. The fact that Mukesh knew the deceased’s son for three years did not, in itself, establish bias or fabrication. The Court found no material contradiction in his account.
The Court further distinguished the cited precedents: in Setu Bai, the vehicle in the claim was different from the one in the F.I.R.; in Kusum, the sole witness was deemed unreliable; in Karamchand, the witness failed to disclose the vehicle number despite being present at the hospital. Here, multiple independent witnesses supported the claim.
Regarding compensation, the Court held that statutory deductions like GPF and GIS should be included in income calculation, as they represent deferred earnings. However, the Tribunal’s omission of income tax deduction (10% on Rs. 2.76 lakh annual income) offset this error, resulting in no net adjustment to the dependency calculation.
The Verdict
The insurance company’s appeal was dismissed. The claimants’ appeal was partly allowed. The Court held that unlisted witnesses may be relied upon in motor accident claims if their testimony is credible and corroborated, and enhanced compensation by Rs. 4,16,323/-, including Rs. 40,000/- each for loss of consortium, 15% for future prospects, and Rs. 15,000/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Witness Credibility Trumps Formal Listing
- Practitioners must challenge witness reliability through cross-examination, not procedural omissions.
- Tribunals are not bound to exclude testimony merely because a witness is absent from the police list.
- Corroboration from official records (e.g., F.I.R., final report) strengthens admissibility.
Compensation Calculations Must Reflect Net Earnings
- Statutory deductions (GPF, GIS) must be added back to gross salary for income assessment.
- Income tax deductions must be subtracted if applicable, to avoid double-counting.
- Future prospects of 15% are mandatory for deceased aged 51 - 55, absent exceptional circumstances.
Loss of Consortium and Funeral Expenses Are Non-Negotiable
- Loss of consortium: Minimum Rs. 40,000/- per dependent is now the baseline for immediate family.
- Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/- is the reasonable minimum; lower awards will be reversed.
- Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/- is the standard unless proven otherwise.
