1    

REPORTABLE    

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3291-3292 OF 2011  

ANIL & ORS              .....APPELLANTS           

                                                                                 Versus   

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS            .....RESPONDENTS  

J U D G M E N T  

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J        

1 The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment dated 6 September  

2010 reversed a decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari dated  

6 February 2001. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 21,38,000/-  

together with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum to the appellants. The  

High Court reversed the award on the ground that the appellants had set up a

2    

“brazenly false case…to stage manage a fake involvement of the insured’s  

vehicle”.   

   2 The deceased was a person by the name of Ram Kanwar. His brother  

Satbir Singh was the owner of a tractor. The case of the claimants which was  

sought to be established through PW1 Bhawani Shankar was that on 12  

January 1995 he together with two others namely Rohtas and Ghanshyam  

(PW2) were proceeding in a tractor driven by Dharampal from Sehjahpur to  

village Jat Behrod. Ram Kanwar signalled for the tractor to stop. However, the  

tractor was driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it ran  

over Ram Kanwar. Besides adverting to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the  

alleged eye-witnesses, the Tribunal adverted to the FIR lodged against Ram  

Kanwar under Sections 279/304-A of the Penal Code. In holding that the  

accident had occurred and that it was caused due to the negligence of the  

tractor driver, the Tribunal observed thus:   

 “15.From the FIR Ex. PA death report Ex.PW8/1 of Ram Kanwar  

and unrebutted evidence led by the petitioner, it is proved on  

record that accident took place on 12.1.95 on account of rash and  

negligent driving of tractor No. RNL-2499 by its driver respondent  

No. 1 Dharampal and in the accident Ram Kanwar died.  

Accordantly, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.”    

3 In appeal, the High Court has adverted in significant detail to a number  

of “disturbing facts” which have emerged from the narration of the case by the  

claimants. The High Court has adverted to the relevant aspects of the evidence  

thus :

3    

“2.There are disturbing facts that emerge from the narration of the  

case by the claimants. In this case, the deceased was Ram  

Kanwar and his brother, Satbir Singh, was the owner of the tractor.  

PW-1 Bhawani Shankar, who claims to be an -eye-witness, states  

that he, along with two other persons namely Rohtas and  

Ghanshyam (PW2), were in the tractor driven by Dharampal. Ram  

Kanwar deceased was stated to have travelled in the same tractor  

also from Behrod to Shehjahanpur and alighted at Foladpur for  

some work and asked the driver to pick him up on his return. The  

tractor was returning at about 6.30 PM and the deceased Ram  

Kanwar was standing on the road. While he signalled the tractor  

to stop, the tractor ran over the deceased by rash and negligent  

driving of the tractor. It is stated that he was run over under the  

wheel of the tractor. The deceased was said to have been taken  

immediately to hospital at Kotputli where he was found bleeding  

excessively. Dr O.S. Mehra (PW4), who was at the hospital, has  

recorded this fact in the OPD slip (Ex. P2) and said to have  

referred the deceased for further treatment at the GH at Gurgaon.  

It is not known whether the deceased died at the hospital at  

Gurgaon or he had died at GH, Kotoputli itself. Admittedly, no  

post-mortem had been conducted.”  

Significantly, no post-mortem was conducted. The High Court also noticed the  

fact that though the accident took place on 12 January 1995, a complaint was  

lodged only on 15 February 1995. As regards the evidence of the driver, the  

High Court noted that while at one stage he had stated that the deceased was  

brought dead, at another place he stated that he was referred to the  

government hospital for further treatment. The circumstance that no post-

mortem was conducted is an extremely significant aspect of the case which in  

our view has justifiably weighed with the High Court. Moreover, the High Court  

found that if there were three passengers in the tractor, all of whom had known  

that driver Dharampal had by his negligent act run over Ram Kanwar, the most  

natural conduct would have been to lodge a complaint. The person who died  

was the brother of the owner of the tractor. Hence, the fact that a complaint was

4    

not lodged for nearly one month is a significant omission in the case. The High  

Court has also noticed that there were no hospital records to indicate, from the  

nature of the injuries, that death had occurred due to an accident of the nature  

alleged. The deceased was conducting a transport business with his brother  

and was an income tax assessee. The fact that proper medical records were  

not available has, in this background, weighed with the High Court. Besides the  

above aspects, the High Court has found that the assessment of compensation  

by the Tribunal is perverse.  

4 On a careful analysis of the judgment of the High Court and the material  

on the record, we find no reason to take a view at variance with that of the High  

Court. The reasoning contained in the award of the Tribunal was perfunctory.  

The Tribunal failed to notice crucial aspects of the case which have a bearing  

on the question as to whether the death of Ram Kanwar was caused as a result  

of the accident caused by the tractor. Each of the circumstances relied upon by  

the High Court is germane to the ultimate conclusion that a false case was set  

up to support a claim for compensation. The appellants have not been able to  

displace the careful analysis of the evidence by the High Court and the findings  

which have been arrived at.   

5    

5 For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeals. The appeals are  

accordingly dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.      

............................................CJI                                        [DIPAK MISRA]         

              …….........................................J  

                            [A M KHANWILKAR]        

                              ….............................................J  

                           [Dr D Y  CHANDRACHUD]    New Delhi  January 19, 2018.