✦ Supreme Court of India

MANGLA RAM v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 2499-2500 of 2018DIPAK MISRA, A M KHANWILKAR51 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

The appeals are allowed in the above terms with costs

Judgment

was not accepted. Besides, the Tribunal relied upon the evidence of respondent No.2 (DW-1) and DW-2 who had stated that the jeep was deployed in the election campaign of Sarpanch and thus denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in question. Nevertheless, the Tribunal then adverted to the FIR and the charge-sheet filed in respect of the accident naming respondent No.2 as accused. The Tribunal placed reliance upon the copy of challan copy of FIR Site Map, Jeep Seizure Report, X-Ray and Injury Report to opine that these police records gathered during the investigation of the crime not only confirmed that an accident had occurred but also indicated the involvement of the offending Jeep which was driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant time. The Tribunal went on to conclude that there was no reason to disagree with the opinion of the Investigating Agency in that behalf. On the basis of the entirety of the evidence, the Tribunal had held that Jeep which was driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant time was involved in the accident in question, causing severe injuries to the appellant. The reasons which weighed with the High Court for reversing the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal upon holistic analysis of the entire evidence, about the involvement of Jeep in the accident, cannot be countenanced. Jeep was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming respondent No.2. Considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of the respondent No.2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong. [Paras 14, 20, 21] [300-E-H; 307-B-C, F-H; 308-A-B]

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeals are allowed in the above terms with costs

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 140, 163A, 166; Constitution of India — arts. 41, 136; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 106; Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Supreme Court of India or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Appeal No. 2499-2500 of 2018). ← Search more judgments