Judgment related to FIR, Charge sheet, Involvement of Vehicle, Identity of Vehicle under MV Act:

Judgment related to FIR, Charge sheet, Involvement of

Vehicle, Identity of Vehicle under MV Act:

1.Identification of vehicle In FIR, offending vehicle is described as Blue Colour bike whereas driver owner sought to avoid its liability on the count that bike was of Red Colour whether sustainable? Held ; No.

SC Judgments followed.

2012 ACJ 2529 (MAD).

1A. Involvement of the vehicle – 2018 ACJ 729 (SC) (FB) –

Anil v/s. NIA Com.

1AA. HC held that FIR was filed after one month against the unknown vehicle but charge sheet is filed against the Maruti car and, therefore, involvement of the Maruti car is not proved Sustainable? Held No.

2022 ACJ 2003 (SC) Janabai v/s. ICICI Lombard

2. Delay in filling of FIR Whether on that count, claim petition can be dismissed. Held ; No.

Delay itself is not sufficient to hold that claim petition is bogus.

2012 AAC 3334. U.I.I. Com. v/s N. Srinivas.,

2014 ACJ 1419 (AP)

3. Involvement of the vehicle Delay in filling FIR whetherit can be the sole basis for arriving at the conclusion the offending vehicle is planted? Held ; No.

When charge sheet is filled, it cannot be doubted.

2013 ACJ 2376 (AP)

4. Whether filing of an FIR is sine qua none for filing claim petition. Held ; No.

2014 ACJ 469 (Mad), 2014 ACJ 585 (Chh)

5. FIR ordinarily averments made in the FIR would not be admissible as evidence per se but when claimant has produced it to prove his case, contents of such FIR admissible.

2014 ACJ 1075, 2017 ACJ 491 (Raj), 2017 (1) GLR

463 – NIACL vs. Giraben D. Patel. Also see following judgment.

Negligence accident between unknown truck and jeep, resulting into injury to the passenger in the jeep injured put blame on the unknown truck while giving statement before the police whereas,

the claim petition is preferred against the jeep inter alia alleging negligence of jeep driver whether sustainable? Held ; No.

2022 ACJ 2105 (Bom) read along with following judgment.

5-A. In the case of Halappa v/s Malik Sab, Civil Appeal Nos. 22911 & 22912 of 2017 (Arising out of SLPs 6891 & 6892 of 2017), dated 15/12/2017, injured claimant claimed that when he approached the tractor, the driver of the tractor was unable to bring it to a halt as a result of which it turned turtle and collided with the claimant resulting in his sustaining grievous injuries. An FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of the injured claimant that at the time accident he was sitting on the Mud gaurd of the tractor. Tribunal after taking into consideration deposition of eye witness, which is to an effect that injured claimant was not sitting on the Muddgaurd and accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. Which is corroborated with the deposition of injured claimant, held IC liable to pay amount of compensation. High Court reversed the findings of the tribunal by holding that in the FIR which was filed by the injured it has been stated that he was sitting on the Muddgaurd and, therefore, IC is not liable. But the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of has held that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of substantive evidence could not have been reversed purely on the basis of the FIR. The Tribunal had noted the admission of the

witness of the insurer in the course of his cross examination that the insurer had maintained a separate file in respect of the accident but the insurer did not produce either the file or the report of the investigator in the case. Moreover, no independent witness was produced by the insurer to displace the version of the incident as deposed to by the injured claimant and by the eye witness.

5. A When addition premium is paid for the passenger in the tractor – IC can be held liable to pay compensation – Asha Devi State Insurance and PF Department 2021 ACJ 2679 (SC).

6. Whether mere filling of Charge sheet for offences punishable u/s 3 and 122 of the Act against the driver of the offending vehicle leads to the conclusion that driver did not possess a licence and owner has intentional breached the terms of the Policy. Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 1501.

7. IC took defence that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid licence Whether a criminal case filed under section 3 and 18 of the M..V. Act is sufficient to hold that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid licence? Held ; No.

2013 ACJ 1758 (MP)

8. Whether filing of Charge sheet against the driver u/s  3 and 181 of the MV Act, would lead to the conclusion that driver was not hold the licence. Held ; No.

Unless it is proved by leading cogent evidence by IC, it not be presumed by Tribunal.

2013 ACJ 2539 (AP).

9. FIR is not sine qua none for filing claim petition – if other documents are sufficient, claim petition cannot be dismissed on the count that FIR is not filed.

2018 ACJ 1135 (P&H)

10. Contents of an FIR is not the conclusive proof – oral evidence will prevail over FIR – 2019 ACJ 953 (Mad)

11. Involvement of the vehicle – if the description given in the claim petition is different then the description given in chargesheet and screen shot of the vehicle is not the conclusive proof and, therefore, IC can not be held liable – 2022 ACJ 181

(Tri)