Insurer’s Appeal Dismissed; Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Reliance on Police Records and Preponderance Standard in Fatal Road-Accident Claim

A bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal heard the appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the Orissa High Court’s dismissal of its challenge to a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in a fatal road-accident claim. The insurer contested the Tribunal’s finding that the driver of the offending truck was rash and negligent and argued that the Tribunal and the High Court improperly relied on police records and a purportedly fraudulent chargesheet.

The Court dismissed the insurer’s appeal and upheld the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court that the truck insured with the appellant caused the accident. The Court held that a tribunal deciding a motor-accident claim must take a “holistic view of the evidence” and may look into police records, including the FIR and final report, for assessing negligence; the standard of proof required was the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “12….A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi.” The Court further noted earlier authority that “filing of charge-sheet … prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly,” and concluded that “the impugned findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted.”

Background The claimants were the legal heirs of Udayanath Sahoo, who died after the motorcycle he was riding collided with a truck bearing registration OR-04-D-5675; the motorcycle was recorded as OR-205/2229. The accident occurred while the deceased was travelling to Bahadajhola at about 1.10 pm on 27.04 (police records bore FIR No.61/2009). The claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act sought ₹10,50,000; the Tribunal awarded ₹6,77,164 with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing until payment. The insurer challenged the award before the High Court, contending that the deceased alone was negligent, that the truck was not involved, and that the charge-sheet and police documents were fraudulent and prepared in connivance with the claimants and police. The High Court, after reviewing oral and documentary evidence including FIR, final form and eyewitness testimony, dismissed the insurer’s appeal, observing that the final report had found the accused driver guilty of rash and negligent driving.

Before the Supreme Court the insurer reiterated its contention of connivance and urged that reliance on police investigation papers was impermissible; the claimants defended the Tribunal’s approach and submitted that the insurer failed to prove any connivance. The Supreme Court considered precedents including Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Dulcina Fernandes, and Mathew Alexander, reiterated that the onus in claims proceedings is to establish negligence on the preponderance of probabilities, and held that police records, where available, could be taken into account by a Tribunal. Finding no perversity in the concurrent findings, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the award; no interim directions were issued and no liberty beyond usual rights was indicated.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP (C) No. 29302 of 2019; 2025 INSC 6 Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocate not specified in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocate not specified in judgment]