2026:MHC:1798C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved On:10.04.2026

Pronounced On:01.06.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

and

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

and

C.M.P.(MD).No.9558 of 2024

The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd,

Rep through its

Branch Manager,

2

nd

Floor, Vijay Complex,

Theni Taluk,

Theni District. ... Appellant

Vs.

1.N.Manimegalai

2.Minor.N.Subash

3.Minor.N.Gowtham

(minor respondents 2 and 3 represented through their mother/natural

guardian/1

st

respondent Manimegalai)

4.P.Murugan

5.K.Mariappan ... Respondents

Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award dated 09.11.2018 passed in

M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal/Additional District Court (FTC), Theni.

1/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

For Appellants : Mr.A.Ilango

For Respondents : Mr.K.Samidurai for R1 to R3

: Ms.K.R.Shivashankari for R5

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J,)

The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal

challenging the award dated 09.11.2018 passed in MCOP No.14 of 2015 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court),

primarily disputing the finding on liability fastened upon the insured vehicle.

2.Facts of the case:

The case of the claimants is that on 06.02.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., the

deceased, Nagaraj, while riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.

TN-63-T-2966 (TVS 50) from Rangarajapuram towards Nagalapuram, met

with a fatal accident near the Adikesavan cattle shed. It is alleged that a tractor,

insured with the appellant and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

against the two-wheeler, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous

injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. Consequently, the dependents of

the deceased, namely his wife and children, instituted a claim petition seeking

2/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-. The appellant–Insurance Company resisted

the claim by specifically disputing (i) the involvement of the insured vehicle,

(ii) the manner of the accident, and (iii) the quantum of compensation claimed.

It was contended that the vehicle had been falsely implicated subsequent to the

accident in order to make a claim.

2.1.Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked

Exhibits P1 to P9. On the side of the respondents, RWs 1 to 5 were examined

and Exhibits R1 to R5 were marked.

3.Finding of the Tribunal:

Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal

held that the insured tractor was involved in the accident and awarded a

compensation of Rs.18,92,500/- on the following heads:

Sl.

No.

Heads Amount in

Rs.

1 Transportation for taking the body 5,000/-

2 Funeral Expenses 15,000/-

3 Loss of consortium of 1

st

petitioner 40,000/-

4 Maintenance of small minor children (2

children X Rs.2,00,000/- each)

4,00,000/-

5 Loss of Estate 15,000/-

6 Loss of Dependency 14,17,500/-

Total 18,92,500/-

3/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the

impugned award, the appellant–Insurance Company has filed the present

appeal.

4.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

The learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company contended

that the First Information Report was initially registered against an unknown

vehicle and that only after a considerable delay RW2 was implicated as the

driver of the tractor. It was further argued that such belated implication casts

serious doubt on the genuineness of the claimants' case, and that the Tribunal

erred in fixing liability in the absence of cogent evidence establishing

involvement of the insured vehicle.

5.Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent:

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants submitted

that the involvement of the vehicle stood duly established through the

consistent testimony of independent eyewitnesses (PWs 3 and 4). It was

further contended that the Investigating Officer (examined as RW4) had, upon

due investigation, identified the vehicle and filed the final report implicating

the tractor driver. The delay in identification, it was argued, does not ipso facto

4/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

discredit the claimants' case, particularly when supported by substantive oral

evidence.

5.1.It was also contended that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings

was not on the ground of non-involvement of the vehicle, but on account of

failure to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. Such

acquittal, it is well-settled, does not operate as a bar to findings in motor

accident claim proceedings, which are governed by the principle of

preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

5.2.In this context, the evidentiary value of the alleged communication

(Ex.R4) said to have been issued by the driver disclaiming involvement was

rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal, as the author thereof was neither

confronted with the document nor admitted its contents during examination.

Consequently, the said document cannot be accorded probative value.

5.3.On an overall appreciation of the evidence, particularly the

testimony of independent witnesses and the findings of the Investigating

Officer, the conclusion of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the

insured vehicle cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by evidence. The

Tribunal has applied the correct principle of standard of proof applicable to

claim proceedings.

5.4.In view of the above, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability

5/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

on the appellant–Insurance Company does not warrant interference, and the

same is liable to be affirmed.

6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents and perused the materials available on record.

7. The sole question that arises for determination in the present appeal is

whether the contention of the appellant–Insurance Company that the insured

vehicle was not involved in the accident is sustainable?

8. Discussion on the involvement of the appellant insured vehicle in

the accident:

8.1.The occurrence of the accident on 06.02.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. is

not in dispute. The case of the claimants, as spoken to by PWs 3 and 4, is that

the tractor bearing Registration No.TN-60-F-6930, driven by RW2 in a rash

and negligent manner, caused the accident resulting in the death of the

deceased. For better appreciation, the deposition of P.W.3 is extracted as

follows:

fle;j 06.02.2013k; Njjp ehd; vdJ Ml;Nlhit Xl;bf;

6/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

nfhz;L nrd;W> ,uT Rkhh; 8 kzpastpy; =nuq;fhGuk;

mUfpy; cs;s efyhGuk; rhiyapy; cs;s lh];khf fil

mUfpy; ehd; Ngha;f; nfhz;bUe;j NghJ> ehd; vdJ

Ml;Nlhit nkJthf epWj;Jtjw;fhf xl;br; nrd;Nwd;.

mg;NghJ ehd; xl;br; nrd;w Ml;Nlhtpw;F tyJ gf;fj;jpy;

xU buhf;luhdJ Ntfkhf fle;J nrd;wJ. ehd; xl;b; nrd;w

Ml;Nlhtpy; vd;Dld; vdJ ikj;Jdh; KUfDk; mkh;e;J

gazk; nra;J te;jhh;. Nkw;gb buhf;lh; Ntfkhf vdJ

Ml;Nlhit fle;J nd;w Rkhh; 5 epkplj;jpw;Fs; lkhh; vd;W

rj;jk; Nfl;lJ. clNd ehd; vdJ ikj;Jdh; KUfdplk;

vNjh lkhh; vd;W rj;jk; Nfl;fpwJ vd;W nrhy;yp> rj;jk;

Nfl;l ,lj;jpy; Ml;Nlhit xl;br; nrd;W epWj;jp ,wq;fpg;

ghh;j;j NghJ> me;j ,lj;jpy; xNu ,Ul;lhf ,Ue;jJ.

me;j ,lj;jpy; MIT ,Urf;fu thfdk; fPNo fple;jJ. ehq;fs;

tpgj;J ele;j ,lj;jpy; me;j ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; te;jtiu

Njbg;ghh;j;j NghJ mq;fpUe;j Kl;Gjhpy; xU egh; ,Ue;jhh;.

ehDk; vdJ ikj;JdUk; mthpd; ,lJ ifiag; gpbj;J

Jhf;fpNdhk;. mthpd; ,lJ ifapy; Njhs; kl;Lk; njhq;fpf;

nfhz;bUe;jJ. if jdpahf te;J tpl;lJ. vdJ ikj;Jdh;

KUfd; fhak;gl;l eghpd; jiyia Jhf;fpg; ghh;j;jhh;. mthpd;

jiy KOtJk; ,uj;jf; fhak; Vw;gl;L ,uj;jkhf ,Ue;jJ.

fhak;gl;l egh; Fbf;f jz;zPh; Ntz;Lk; vd;W Nfl;lhh;.

mg;NghJ me;j ,lj;jpy; buhf;liu xl;b te;j Xl;LeUk;

epd;W nfhz;bUe;jhh;. buhf;lh; Xl;Lehplk; Fbf;f jz;zPh;

nfhz;L thUq;fs; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;. jz;zPh; ghl;biy

vLj;J tUfpNwd; vd;W nrhy;ypr; nrd;Wtpl;lhh;.

8.2. P.W.4 also deposed in same line and corroborated with P.W.3. From

the above evidence of Pws 3 and 4, it is clear that they noticed the tractor

7/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

being driven in excessive speed, which drew their attention. Upon reaching the

scene of occurrence, they found the deceased lying in the nearby bush in a

grievously injured condition, at the brink of death. It is further borne out from

their evidence that the driver of the tractor, examined as RW2, after the

occurrence, was present in the scene of occurrence place and he allegedly

instructed PWs 3 and 4 to provide water to the injured and thereafter he left the

place abruptly. The testimony of PWs 3 and 4, who are independent

eyewitnesses, is cogent, consistent, and free from material contradictions. The

conduct of RW2 in leaving the scene hurriedly after the occurrence, coupled

with the surrounding circumstances spoken to by the independent

eyewitnesses, assumes significance. Ordinarily, mere abscondence cannot, by

itself, be treated as a determinative circumstance to fasten liability, as it is well

settled that such conduct may speak of multiple explanations. However, the

present case stands on a different footing. This Court is, therefore, of the

considered view that such conduct, though not conclusive in isolation,

constitutes a relevant circumstantial factor which lends assurance to the

version of PWs 3 and 4 regarding the involvement of the tractor in the

accident. When read in conjunction with the other evidence on record, this

circumstance fortifies the finding that the insured vehicle was indeed involved

in the occurrence.

8/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

9. RW2 has not offered any plausible explanation to controvert the

specific and consistent evidence of PWs 3 and 4. The said evidence, therefore,

remains unshaken and unrebutted in material particulars. In the absence of any

effective rebuttal, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn in terms of Section

114 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Illustration (g), for withholding

the best possible explanation within the knowledge of the driver.

10. The consistent testimony of PWs 3 and 4, duly corroborated by the

testimony of the Investigating Officer (examined as RW4), who has

categorically deposed that, upon investigation, the involvement of the said

vehicle was ascertained and, after examining the relevant witnesses, a final

report was filed implicating RW2. He specifically deposed that he conducted

investigation and found out the involvement of the R.W.2 in the accident by

driving the tractor and he was arrested on 22.02.2013 and he was remanded

and confined in judicial custody vide the remand order dated 22.02.2013 and

final report also filed and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.451 of 2013

and the relevant of the evidence of R.W.4 as follows:

vjphpapd; ngah; ehuhazjh]; vd;W gpd;dh; ehd;

rhl;rpfis tprhhpj;J mjd; %yk; njhpa te;j jftypd;

mbg;gilapy; vjphpapd; ngaiu Nrh;j;Njd;. rhl;rpfs;

jq;fNty;> uh[hkzp MfpNahiu tprhhpj;J thf;F%yq;fs;

9/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

gjpT nra;Js;Nsd;. tof;F gjpT nra;ag;gl;l 06.02.2013

Njjpf;F gpd;G 22.02.2013 md;W jhd; vjphpia ,t;tof;fpy;

Nrh;j;Njd;........

Therefore, mere fact that such involvement came to light after a lapse of about

16 days does not, by itself, render the prosecution case doubtful, particularly

when supported by substantive evidence.

11.The appellant–Insurance Company has also failed to adduce any

cogent rebuttal evidence to probabilise its plea of false implication. Mere

denial, in the absence of substantiating material, cannot displace the positive

evidence adduced by the claimants. The R.W.5, Manager of the Insurance

Company was examined and he admitted that the investigating agency

conducted a fair investigation and arrested R.W.2 and filed the final report and

the relevant portion of the evidence is as follows:

mjw;F gpd;dh; fhty;Jiwapdh; rhpahd Kiwapy;

Gyd;tprhuiz nra;J jhd; tpgj;ij Vw;gLj;jpa Xl;Leh;

ehuhazjh]; vd;w tpguk; njhpa te;j gpd;G jhd;

ehuhazjh]; vd;gtiu ifJ nra;J Fw;w ,Wjp mwpf;if

jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.

12. R.W.2 was tractor driver. He has not denied the filing of the final

report against him and arrest made by the investigating agency. He deposed

that he was acquitted. RW5 produced Ex.R4 and contended that the vehicle

10/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

was not involved but the same cannot be accorded evidentiary value. The

author of the document, namely Narayanan Das, RW2 was not confronted with

the said document during his examination. On the contrary, in cross-

examination, he denied having any record of such communication. In the

absence of proper proof, the document remains unsubstantiated and cannot be

relied upon. Therefore, it is not the case of the appellant–Insurance Company

or RW2 that any false case had been foisted against the driver. No complaint or

representation has been made to any authority alleging false implication. The

absence of any such contemporaneous protest document assumes relevance

while appreciating the defence now sought to be projected. On the contrary,

the case of the claimants stands established on the touchstone of

preponderance of probabilities, which is the applicable standard in

proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act.

13. This Court has also called for and perused the judgment in C.C.No.4

of 2015, wherein the criminal court acquitted the accused. A reading of the

said judgment reveals that the acquittal was not on the ground of non-

involvement of the vehicle, but on account of failure to establish rash and

negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled that findings in

criminal proceedings do not have impact on proceedings under the Motor

11/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

Vehicles Act, where the standard of proof is one of preponderance of

probabilities.

14.On a cumulative assessment of the evidence, this Court finds that the

materials placed by the claimants, including the oral evidence of PWs 3 and 4

and the investigation culminating in the final report, inspire confidence and

leave no room for suspicion. There is neither pleading nor proof of fraud or

fabrication as alleged by the appellant.

15.It is trite that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary

in nature, and strict rules of evidence as applicable to criminal trials are not

required to be adhered to. The claimants are only required to establish their

case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In this regard, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and various courts have consistently held that even in

cases where the offending vehicle was not initially identified in the FIR,

subsequent investigation establishing involvement is sufficient to fasten

liability and the relevant portion of the judgments as follows:

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Janabai v. ICICI

Lambord Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 512 reversed the

12/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

judgment of the High Court, which had declined to fasten liability on the

insured vehicle merely on the ground that the registration number of the

offending vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR. The Apex Court held that, in

a motor accident claim, the Tribunal is required to determine the involvement

of the vehicle on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence available on

record and not solely on the contents of the FIR. The Supreme Court also took

note of the fact that the owner of the insured vehicle had not lodged any

complaint alleging false implication of the vehicle in the accident. The

relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

find that the order [ICICI Lombard Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Janabai,

2018 SCC OnLine Bom 21282] of the High Court is

unsustainable. Appellant 1 and her husband had received injuries

in an accident which took place on 1-6-2007. She lost her

husband on 25-6-2007. The primary concern of Appellant 1 or

other relatives at the time of incident was to take care of the

deceased in his critical condition. The health and well-being of

her husband was her priority rather than to lodge an FIR. The

High Court has proceeded primarily on the basis of information

to the police regarding non-disclosure of the name of the driver of

the car in the FIR. Appellant 1 has filed her examination-in-chief

on 1-8-2011 disclosing the car number of the offending vehicle.

The owner and the Insurance Company had the opportunity to

cross-examine the witness in support of their stand that the

13/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

vehicle number given by her was not involved in the accident. In

cross-examination, she deposed that she was brought to the

hospital in the vehicle which dashed into their vehicle. She

deposed that she was mentally disturbed and hospitalised,

therefore, she filed the complaint late.

10. On the other hand, the owner has appeared as a

witness. He admitted that he had taken the vehicle on superdari

and that he has not filed any proceedings to quash FIR against

Sanjay, driver of the Car. He admitted that bail application form

and surety bond (Exts. 68, 69 and 70) show that he has stood

surety for the driver wherein he has mentioned the accused as

driver of his vehicle. It has also come on record that the owner

has not made any complaint in respect of false implication of his

vehicle or the driver.

11. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a

criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in

nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of

Appellant 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application

under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before

it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or

could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire

approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.”

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Lata v. Satbir,

reported in (2011) 3 SCC 646 relied the evidence of the eyewitness to the

14/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

occurrence produced during the course of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

proceedings and held that the proof of the accident before the Motor Accident

Tribunal is not like that of the proof as required to be done in a criminal trial

and the relevant paragraphs as follows:

“7. When Dheeraj Kumar was cross-examined, he stated that

the deceased Surender is not related to him nor was he his

neighbour. He was his co-villager. Dheeraj Kumar also told that he

knows the driver of the vehicle bearing No. HR 34 8010. He denied

all suggestions that he was giving his evidence to help the victim.

8. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have refused to

accept the presence of Dheeraj Kumar as his name was not

disclosed in the FIR by the brother of the victim. This Court is

unable to appreciate the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal and

the High Court. This Court is of the opinion that when a person is

seeing that his brother, being knocked down by a speeding vehicle,

was suffering in pain and was in need of immediate medical

attention, that person is obviously under a traumatic condition. His

first attempt will be to take his brother to a hospital or to a doctor.

It is but natural for such a person not to be conscious of the

presence of any person in the vicinity especially when Dheeraj did

not stop at the spot after the accident and gave a chase to the

offending vehicle. Under such mental strain if the brother of the

victim forgot to take down the number of the offending vehicle it

was also not unnatural.

9. There is no reason why the Tribunal and the High Court

would ignore the otherwise reliable evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. In

15/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

fact, no cogent reason has been assigned either by the Tribunal or

by the High Court for discarding the evidence of Dheeraj Kumar.

The so-called reason that as the name of Dheeraj Kumar was not

mentioned in the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj Kumar to

see the incident, is not a proper assessment of the fact situation in

this case. It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident

claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is

required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this

distinction in mind.

10. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision

of this Court in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC [(2009) 13 SCC 530 :

(2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1101] , in which the relevant observation on

this point has been made and which is very pertinent and is quoted

below: (SCC p. 534, para 15)

“15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly

taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be

borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a

particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to

be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to

establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of

probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt

could not have been applied.”

18. The Hon'ble three Bench of Supreme Court in the case of the Anita

Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2021) 1 SCC 171 has

affirmed the principles in the case of Sunita v. Rajasthan

SRTC [Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486] that the

16/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

Motor Accident Tribunal can place reliance of the evidence of the witnesses

examined before the Tribunal even though they were not cited as witnesses in

the criminal case to prove the involvement of the vehicle and accident and the

relevant portion is as follows:

“ 20........ There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a

witness in motor accident claim who has 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. Once that is done, it will not be open to them to

complain about any prejudice caused to them. If there was any

doubt to be cast on the veracity of the witness, the same should

have come out in cross-examination, for which opportunity was

granted to the respondents by the Tribunal.

***

32. The High Court has not held that the respondents were

successful in challenging the witnesses' version of events, despite

being given the opportunity to do so. The High Court accepts that

the said witness (A.D. 2) was cross-examined by the respondents

but nevertheless reaches a conclusion different from that of the

Tribunal, by selectively overlooking the deficiencies in the

respondent's case, without any proper reasoning.”

(emphasis supplied)

8.1.(a) In Laxmi Gontiya and another v. Nand Lal

Tahalramani and others, 1999 ACJ 241, a Division Bench of the

17/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

Madhya Pradesh High Court has considered the issue as to

whether the non-mentioning of the Registration Number of the

offending vehicle is fatal to the claim. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of

the judgment, the Court held as follows:

9. ........ Merely because the Registration number, if not

mentioned in the First Information Report, testimony of

the witnesses cannot be discarded as it is well settled

that the First Information Report is not a substantive

piece of evidence. It is not an encyclopaedia. The object

of First Information Report from the point of view of the

informant is to set the criminal law in motion. From the

point of view of Investigating Authorities, it is to obtain

information about the alleged criminal activity so as to

able to take suitable steps for tracing and bringing to

book the guilty party. In Kusum Kali v. Bhailal Tiwari,

M.A. No. 465 of 1995, decided on 04.11.1996, where the

registration number was not mentioned in the First

Information Report, this Court has observed that mere

non-mention of number in the first information report

would not be fatal, if otherwise it is established that the

vehicle was involved in the accident.

10. In motor accident cases where the litigant persons

are illiterate, if the Tribunal finds that the evidence led

is not sufficient to establish the involve-ment of the

vehicle which causes the accident, in our opinion, it

would be proper for the Tribunal giving a helping hand

by directing the party to lead evidence in accordance

with the requirement of law, as it is well settled that a

Court or Tribunal is not to act as an unpire watching a

battle of wits between the parties from a distance

through telescope. The Court is charged with the

responsibility of guiding the procedure and apprising

the parties whenever necessary of their duties. As legal

procedure is full of traps; if a litigant happens to

stumble, the Courts should discharge its responsibility

except when this is the result of an attempt to be clever

and over-reach the Court or to do something inequitable

18/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

to the other side. In the latter event the party concerned

should be dealt with severely.”

8.1.(B). In Raju v. Sardar Singh and another, 2005 (3) ACC

138, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that, even in the

absence of Registration number in the First Information Report, if

there is clear oral evidence that the vehicle was involved in the

accident, compensation has to be awarded.

18. In the absence of any strong rebuttal evidence to prove

that the bus owned by the appellant-Transport Corporation was not

involved in the accident, the finding of the Tribunal on the basis of

the oral evidence of the respondent/claimant, corroborated by the

First Information Report that route number 55K was involved in

the accident cannot be termed as perverse. Mere non-mentioning of

the Registration Number in the First Information Report is not fatal

to the claim. There is preponderance of probability to arrive at a

reasonable conclusion that the appellant-Transport Corporation

bus was involved in the accident. Courts have always held that

strict proof of evidence is not required in Motor Accident cases to

prove the negligence of the driver and that technicalities or niceties

should not alone waive while assessing the evidence. Therefore, the

finding of the Tribunal as regards negligence is confirmed.

8.1.(E).Ramasamy v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2006

SCC OnLine Mad 897

10. ... From these sequence of events, as done by the

Tribunal, it has to be naturally concluded that only after the First

Information Report was produced before the Tribunal and only

19/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

after the examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 was over, as an afterthought,

the counsel for the respondents before the Tribunal has argued (at

the cost of repetition) that neither the name of the driver nor the

number of the lorry was found in the First Information Report and

the Criminal Case against the driver also has been closed and as

such, the lorry in question was not at all involved in the accident.

The Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that the

insurance company shall not make not contesting in the cae

genuine claims in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kiran Singh &

others, 2004 (10) SCC 649 in which a portion of paragraph 6 reads

as under:

“Insurance Companies must bear in mind that they are the

trustee of the public, keepers of the public coffer. Often, even

genuine claims are being hotly contested in a routine manner by

dragging the parties to Courts, wasting enormous time and money

for the claimants to get their claims settled. An Act like the Motor

Vehicles Act, being a beneficial legislation aimed at quick redressal

of the victims of accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles,

the attitude routinely adopted by the Insurance Companies would

render the object of the Act frustrated....”

19.The non-mentioning of the registration number in the First

Information Report does not, in the facts of the present case, assume

determinative significance. It is well settled that the FIR is not an

encyclopaedia of the prosecution case. The subsequent investigation, which

20/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

helped to identity the vehicle and the driver within a reasonable period of

about 15 days, culminating in the filing of the final report, lends adequate

assurance to the version of the claimants.

20.Further, it is pertinent to note that the appellant–Insurance Company

has not taken any steps to initiate proceedings alleging false implication of the

vehicle. The absence of any such action weakens the defence now sought to be

raised by the insurance company.

21.In view of the cumulative effect of the above circumstances, this

Court is satisfied that the involvement of the insured vehicle has been proved

on a balance of probabilities, notwithstanding the initial omission in the FIR.

The finding of the Tribunal, therefore, warrants no interference.

22.In light of the above principles and the evidence on record, this Court

has no hesitation in holding that the involvement of the insured vehicle stands

duly established. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is based on proper

appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from perversity warranting

interference.

21/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

23. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as devoid

of merits. The compensation awarded in M.C.O.P.No.14 of 2015 on the file of

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (FTC), Theni,

dated 09.11.2018, is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is

directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interest and costs,

less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is

permitted to withdraw the award amount, less the amount already withdrawn,

if any, together with proportionate interest and costs. No costs. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[N.A.V.,J.] & [K.K.R.K.,J.]

01.06.2026

NCC :Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

Index :Yes/No

sbn

To

1.The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Additional District Court,(FTC),

Theni

2. The Section Officer,

VR Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

22/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.

and

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.

sbn

Pre-delivery judgment made in

C.M.A.(MD).No.888 of 2024

Dated: 01.06.2026

23/23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis