Court emphasizes primacy of eyewitness testimony and investigative findings over FIR in motor accident claims, setting aside tribunal’s exoneration of insurer
In a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) delivered a landmark verdict in the case of Anil Kumar Patel v. Smt. Munni Bai Barman and Others (Misc. Appeal No. 2884 of 2019), reshaping the approach towards insurance liability in motor vehicle accident claims. The Court held that the insurance company cannot be exonerated based solely on the contents of the First Information Report (FIR) when substantive eyewitness evidence and investigative findings contradict it.
The case arose from a fatal accident involving a tractor driven by the appellant Anil Kumar Patel and resulting in the death of Ramcharan Verma. The Tribunal had earlier ruled that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger sitting on the tractor and thus excluded the insurance company’s liability, relying primarily on the FIR which stated the deceased fell from the tractor. However, the claimant’s evidence and eyewitness testimony painted a different picture — that the deceased was dancing on the road in front of the tractor when the tractor was negligently driven, leading to the fatal accident.
The High Court scrutinized the evidence in detail and relied heavily on the testimony of Ram Verma alias Ashu, an eyewitness who was also injured in the accident. Ram Verma testified that the deceased and he were dancing ahead of the tractor, which was driven rashly and negligently by the tractor driver, causing the accident. The Court noted that no eyewitness evidence was adduced by the insurance company to support their version of the deceased sitting on the tractor, nor was the author of the FIR examined to prove its contents. The Court underscored that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence but serves only as corroborative evidence under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and can be used for contradiction purposes.
Citing the Supreme Court precedent in Halappa v. Malik Sab (2018) 12 SCC 15, the Court reiterated that the findings of fact recorded on the basis of substantive evidence before the Tribunal cannot be reversed merely on the FIR's contents, especially when the insurance company fails to produce independent eyewitnesses or the FIR’s author to substantiate their claims.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the Investigating Officer had filed a charge-sheet against the tractor driver under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for rash and negligent driving, reinforcing the claimants' version of the incident.
Consequently, the Court set aside the part of the Tribunal’s award that exonerated the insurance company and held the insurer liable to satisfy the compensation awarded. The rest of the award passed by the Tribunal remained intact.
This judgment is a crucial reminder that insurance companies cannot escape liability by relying solely on the FIR without presenting proper evidence. It reinforces the principle that eyewitness testimony and investigative reports hold greater evidentiary value in motor accident cases.
Bottom Line:
Motor Vehicles Act - FIR alone cannot determine facts in motor vehicle accident cases, especially when substantive evidence from eyewitnesses contradicts the FIR. The insurance company cannot be exonerated solely based on FIR contents without proving them through proper evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173(1), Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 145, Indian Penal Code Section 304A
Anil Kumar Patel v. Smt. Munni Bai Barman, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973430
