ANIL & ORSversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS

                        [2018] 1 S.C.R. 321                            321


                           ANIL & ORS                                  A
                                      v.
          NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS
               (Civil Appeal Nos. 3291-3292 of 2011)
                        JANUARY 19, 2018                               B
       [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
                DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
       Motor Vehicles – Accident – Claim for compensation – Tractor
ran over the deceased – Tribunal held that the accident had occurred
due to the negligence of the driver and granted compensation –         C
High Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal – On appeal, held:
The circumstance that no post-mortem was conducted on the
deceased is an extremely significant aspect – The fact that a
complaint was not lodged for nearly one month is a significant
omission in the case – Also, there were no hospital records to         D
indicate, from the nature of the injuries, that death had occurred
due to an accident of the nature alleged – Each of the circumstance
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.
      Prosecution case was that PW-1 together with two others
                                                                       E
(including PW2) was proceeding in a tractor, when deceased
signaled for the tractor to stop. However, the tractor ran over
the deceased. Tribunal adverting to the evidence of PW1 and
PW2, the alleged eye-witnesses and the FIR registered u/s.279/
304-A, held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence
of the tractor driver and granted compensation. However, High          F
Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal. Hence the present
appeals.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1. In appeal, the High Court has adverted in
significant detail to a number of “disturbing facts” which have        G
emerged from the narration of the case by the claimants. The
circumstance that no post-mortem was conducted is an extremely
significant aspect of the case which 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       H
                                321
322            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A     the driver had by his negligent act run over the deceased, 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 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
B
      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. [Para
C     3][323-D-E; 324-C-F]
            2. 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
D     High Court and the findings which have been arrived at. [Para
      4][324-G-H]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3291-
      3292 of 2011.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2010 of the High Court
E     of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cross Objection No. 57-CII of
      2006 and FAO No. 1357 of 2001 (O&M).
            Aishwarya Bhati, Vishwajit, Ms. W. V. T. Sangama, Advs. for
      the Appellants.

F           P. P. Nayak, Ajay Pal, Ms. Bhupinder, Ms. Vandana M. Hooda,
      Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1.The Punjab and Haryana
      High Court by its judgment dated 6 September 2010 reversed a decision
G     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
      “brazenly false case…to stage manage a fake involvement of the insured’s
      vehicle”.
H
  ANIL & ORS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS                              323
             [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

        2. The deceased was a person by the name of Ram Kanwar. His             A
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
                                                                                B
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    C
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          D
        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 :                                                  E
        “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                 F
        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
                                                                                G
        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               H
324             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 1 S.C.R.


A           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.”
B            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
C     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
D     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 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
E     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.
F            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
G     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.
H
  ANIL & ORS v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS                           325
             [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      5. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeals. The         A
appeals are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


Ankit Gyan                                              Appeals dismissed.

                                                                             B




                                                                             C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H