NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SALEEM KHAN MEWATI & Ors.

Judgment

#1. The present appeal has been preferred by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [“Insurance Company”], assailing an award dated 19.05.2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [“the Tribunal”] in MACT Case No. 775/2018. By the impugned award, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,25,35,440/-, alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, in favour of the claimant [respondent No. 1 herein], arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.08.2016. A. FACTS

#2. The facts of the accident, as borne out from the impugned award, MAC.APP. 555/2025 are that, on 13.08.2016 at about 11:00 PM, claimant alongwith his cousin, namely Beeru @ Abdul Salam, was standing opposite Madarsa and Mihir Bhoj Balika Degree College, Dadri. At that time, a car bearing registration No. HR-27C-5161 [“insured vehicle”], driven by respondent No. 2 herein, allegedly in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, struck the claimant with force. As a result of the impact, the claimant was thrown onto the road and sustained grievous head injuries. The insured vehicle was owned by respondent No. 3 herein, and was insured with the appellant – Insurance Company.

#3. The claimant was thereafter removed from the site of the accident and taken in a PCR van to Columbia Hospital, Ghaziabad, where he remained under medical treatment for a considerable period. It is stated that, prior to the accident, the claimant was running a grocery shop. However, due to the injuries sustained, he remained bedridden for a prolonged duration, and was unable to resume work.

#4. In relation to the aforesaid accident, FIR No. 0460/2016 under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered on

25.08.2016 at Police Station Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, and subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed on 01.01.2017. B. IMPUGNED AWARD

#5. The claimant thereafter instituted claim proceedings before the Tribunal, seeking compensation in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident. In the said proceedings, the driver, owner, and insurer of the insured vehicle were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

#6. The Tribunal returned a finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle and, on that basis, proceeded MAC.APP. 555/2025 to assess and award compensation in favour of the claimant, under the following heads: Sr.No. Heads Pecuniary Loss (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) Expenditure on treatment Expenditure on Conveyance Expenditure on special diet Cost of nursing / attendant Loss of income Cost of artificial limbs (if applicable) (vii) Percentage of loss of earning capacity in relation to disability (viii) Any other loss / expenditure Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 8,47,479/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.12,79,260/- Rs.3,36,756/- N/A 100% N/A (ix) Loss of future income Rs.70,71,945/- Non-Pecuniary Loss (i) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma on Rs. 20,00,000/- account of injuries: (ii) (iii) Loss of amenities of life Future medical expenses Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 5,00,000/- Total Compensation Rs.1,25,35,440/- C. SUBMISSIONS

I have heard Mr. Salil Paul, learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company, and Mr. G.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. MAC.APP. 555/2025

#8. Mr. Paul’s principal submission was that the narrative advanced with respect to involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident, prima facie, lacks credibility. He submitted that the material on record indicates that the said vehicle has been falsely implicated, and that the driver has colluded in the process. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to the unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR. While the accident is stated to have occurred on 13.08.2016 at about 11:00 PM, the FIR was lodged by the father of the claimant only twelve days later, i.e. on 25.08.2016. According to him, this delay casts serious doubt on the veracity of the version of the accident, as put forth by the claimant.

#9. Mr. Paul further submitted that the evidence regarding the occurrence of the accident itself is unreliable. By way of example, he submited that although one alleged eye-witness, Mr. Abdul Salam, was examined as PW-2 before the Tribunal, another purported eye-witness, namely Mr. Gyasuddin, who was admittedly present at the spot, was not examined. Mr. Paul further urged that the registration number of the insured vehicle was mentioned for the first time in the FIR which was lodged twelve days after the incident. According to him, this was incongruous with the assertion of PW-2, Mr. Abdul Salam, that he had noted down, at least a part of the insured vehicle’s registration number immediately after the accident.

#10. Mr. Paul also pointed out material inconsistencies between the contemporaneous medical record and the case pleaded before the Tribunal. While the Medico-Legal Certificate [“MLC”] recorded that the claimant was struck by a four-wheeler while he was travelling “with bike”, the case advanced by the claimant – supported by the testimony of MAC.APP. 555/2025 Mr. Abdul Salam – was that he was standing by the roadside at the time of the accident. Mr. Paul submitted that this discrepancy is material and goes to the root of the matter.

#11. Mr. Paul submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly excessive, disproportionate, and unsustainable in law. He further, inter alia, contends that the claim petition itself sought only Rs.50,00,000/- and did not quantify losses under specific heads, yet the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,25,35,440/-. In particular, it was submitted that: a) The Tribunal erred in granting compensation under the heads of future medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, special diet, conveyance, and attendant charges, none of which were supported by documentary evidence or expert opinion. b) The compensation awarded for expenditure on treatment of Rs.8,47,479/- includes Rs.30,000/- on account of miscellaneous hospital expenses, without any supporting documentation. c) He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty1 to submit that the Tribunal incorrectly computed loss of income at Rs.3,36,756/- based on a single year’s ITR, contrary to settled law, which requires the average of the preceding three years. d) Although a ground has been raised in the appeal questioning the Tribunal’s assessment of 100% disability and the application of the multiplier as being excessive, the said contention was not pressed during the course of submissions. MAC.APP. 555/2025

#12. Mr. Paul’s final submission related to the award of interest. He submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously granted interest for the period from 23.12.2021 to 18.07.2022, even though the claim petition had been dismissed for default by the Tribunal on 23.12.2021, and was restored only on 18.07.2022. He contended that no interest ought to be payable for the period during which the claim was not diligently prosecuted.

#13. Mr. Pandey, on the other hand, supported the findings of the Tribunal and submitted that they are borne out by the evidence on record. He relied on the testimony of PW-2, submitting that the eye-witness provided consistent evidence regarding the manner in which the accident occurred, which aligns with the case pleaded by the claimant. He further submitted that the purported inconsistency between the version advanced by the claimant and the MLC was never put to PW-2 during cross- examination and, therefore, cannot be relied upon at this stage to discredit the claimant’s case.

#14. With regard to the delay in lodging the FIR, Mr. Pandey submitted that the claimant was immediately removed from the accident site and taken to the hospital in a PCR van. Consequently, the police authorities were aware of the accident from the outset. In these circumstances, he contended that no adverse inference ought to be drawn, merely on account of the delay in formal registration of the FIR.

#15. Mr. Pandey also addressed the objections raised to the quantum of compensation, and has made submissions in support of each head under which compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. These submissions shall be examined in detail at the appropriate stage. 1 (2018) 3 SCC 686 [hereinafter, “Ajay Kumar Mohanty”]. MAC.APP. 555/2025 D. ANALYSIS RE: INVOLVEMENT OF THE INSURED VEHICLE

#16. The principal argument advanced by Mr. Paul concerned the very involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. In support of this submission, he pointed to an alleged discrepancy between the MLC of the claimant prepared at the hospital, and the version reflected in the FIR and the oral evidence. While the MLC recorded that the claimant was on a bike at the time he was hit by the insured vehicle, the FIR as well as the testimony before the Tribunal indicated that he was standing by the roadside when the accident occurred. Mr. Paul further contended that, in this backdrop, the delay of twelve days in lodging the FIR assumes significance and cumulatively casts serious doubt on the credibility of the claimant’s case.

#17. These submissions must be assessed against the pleadings and the entirety of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal. In the claim petition, the claimant had stated that he, alongwith his cousin, namely Mr. Abdul Salam, was present at the spot at the time of the accident and that he was standing when the accident occurred. The manner in which the accident was stated to have taken place was described in the claim petition as follows: “That on 13.08.2016 at around 11.00 p.m. the petitioner/injured alongwith his cousin brother namely Beeru @ Abdul Salam were standing opposite Madarsa & Mihir Bhoj Balika Digree [sic] College, Dadri. On Car bearing regd. No. HR-27C-5161 being driven by its driver i.e. respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at very fast speed came from Dadri Bust Stand and hit forcefully to the petitioner. Due to this sudden forceful impact, the injured was fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries, the petitioner suffered grievous head injury and other injuries all over his body. The PCR Van took the injured alongwith his cousin brother Beeru @ Abdul Salam.” MAC.APP. 555/2025

#18. It may be noted that the Insurance Company filed its written statement contending, inter alia, that the insured vehicle had been falsely implicated in the accident. The owner and driver of the vehicle [respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal] also filed a written statement, in which they resisted liability on the ground that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company [respondent No.3 before the Tribunal]. Significantly, the manner in which the accident occurred was not disputed by either of the parties.

#19. The claimant’s cousin, Mr. Abdul Salam, who was also an eye- witness to the accident, was examined as PW-2. His affidavit of evidence reads as follows: “1. That the deponent is eye witness of the accident occurred on 13.08.2016 at around 11 pm. The deponent along with Injured Saleem Khan Mewati and Sh. Gayasuddin were standing beside road opposite Madarsa and Mihir Bhoj Ballka Degree College Dadri. One white colour Swift car bearing Regn No. HR-27-C-5161 was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and at very fast speed came from Dadri bus stand and hit forcefully to Sh. Saleem Khan Mewati. Due to this sudden forceful impact, Saleem Khan Mewati fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over body. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin tried to stop the car and ran after the car but the driver of the offending vehicle ran away alongwith the car. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin noted down the registered number of the offending vehicle.

#2. That the deponent made a call to the father of injured and asked him to come to the spot of accident. That after few moments the PCR also arrived at the spot of accident. The deponent and Sh. Gayasuddin put Saleem Khan Mewati into PCR and took him to Naveen Hospital at Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP but considering the condition of Saleem Khan Mewati, he was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital, Ghaziabad, where Saleem Khan was treated.

#3. That the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1, who was driving the offending vehicle in very fast MAC.APP. 555/2025 speed without observing the traffic rules. It is pertinent to mention here that there were mercury road lights on the Building of the Madarsa.”2

#20. PW-2 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, during which he deposed as under: “On the night of accident, at 11 PM, after coming back from a party (Daawat), I was talking to Mr. Gayazuddin and Mr. Salim. The party was organised on occasion of birth of one Salmu’s child. All three of us were on foot. Father of Mr. Salim resides close to the place of accident along with his younger son namely Javed. At the place where the accident took place, there is a divider on the road and the road is quite broad as the vehicles from both the sides can easily pass through. After the alleged accident took place, while I was calling the police, meanwhile, the PCR had arrived. I was calling the PCR from my phone no.9350352328. Police took the injured to the Naveen Hospital in Dadri where the hospital refused to admit the injured. After that, we took the ambulance from Naveen Hospital and took the injured to Columbia Hospital, Ghaziabad. I was accompanied by Gayasuddin. We reached Columbia Asia Hospital at around 11:30 pm. Officials of Dadri Police visited Columbia Hospital and they were duly intimated about the accident. The police recorded my statement in Columbia Asia Hospital. I do not remember whether my signatures were procured or not. It is correct that FIR was not lodged by me. I do not know any person named Shakhir. 2-3 days after the accident, police called me at PS Dadri for identification of the offending vehicle. I was never called to identify the owner and driver of the alleged car. I have never met the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Neither I have been summoned by the criminal court in Dadri nor have I given any statement there till today. I had also stated to the doctor at Columbia Hospital regarding the accident taking place due to negligence of the driver of the car. At the time of accident, we were standing next to Mihir Bhoj Balika Degree College, Dadri when the offending vehicle hit the injured who after the knock, fell on the bonnet of the offending vehicle and then fell down on the road at the left side of the offending vehicle. After hitting the victim, the driver of the alleged car bearing no. HR-27C-5161 slowed down for a while but thereafter rushed away. I and Gayasuddin noted the number of the 2 Emphasis supplied. MAC.APP. 555/2025 offending vehicle. Vol.: there was street light at the spot of the accident. It is correct that neither me nor Gayasuddin lodged the FIR. It is incorrect to suggest that we did not lodge the FIR as we did not know the number of the offending vehicle. It is incorrect to suggest that I was not present at the time of accident. Q. I put to you that your name does not appear anywhere either in the criminal or hospital records. What do you have to say? Question objected to by the Ld. Counsel for claimant on the grounds that the same is matter of record. A. I cannot say. It is incorrect to suggest that the vehicle bearing no. HR27C5161 has not caused the present accident and it is falsely been implicated just in order to receive compensation. I have studied till class 3rd or 4th. I cannot recognize the English alphabets but I can recognize the numerical digits. At this stage, the witness has been shown his affidavit to read to the alphabets and numerical digits wherein he could recognize and recall the numerical digits in a slow manner but could not read the English alphabets. I was not called by the wife of Mr. Saleem to depose in the court. It is correct that I have not received any summons from the court. I know the injured as the injured is from Dadri (vahin ke purane rehne wale haiii). It is correct that I and the injured are not relatives. At this stage, the witness has been confronted with his affidavit and he has identified his signatures therein. I do not know what is written in my affidavit. The signatures on the affidavit were put by me today itself in Saket Court. It is wrong to suggest that I have not witnessed the accident and the vehicle bearing no. HR27C5161 was not involved in the accident. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”3 3Emphasis supplied. MAC.APP. 555/2025

#21. Mr. Paul specifically pointed out the discrepancy with regard to the claimant being “on foot” and the witness’s testimony concerning his knowledge of the English alphabet and the contents of his affidavit.

#22. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the Tribunal noted that PW-2 had been cited as an eye-witness in the charge-sheet filed in the criminal proceedings. As regards the objection raised by the Insurance Company to the testimony of PW-2, on the ground that he admittedly could not read English alphabets, the Tribunal observed as follows: “16. The only objection raised by counsel for insurance company is that the witness was unable to read the alphabets and therefore, by no measure could it be presumed that the witness could have identified the Registration number of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. No objection as such has been raised about the colour, make or the numerical digits of the registration number of the offending vehicle. Apart from reading the digits, it is evident that the witness has provided a vivid explanation of the mode and manner of the accident. He could detail as to how the petitioner first fell on the bonnet of the vehicle after the forceful knock and then eventually on road on left side of the vehicle and how the driver of the offending vehicle had slowed down after the accident and eventually rushed away. PW-2 has asserted that the spot of accident was sufficiently lit and was not pitch dark that there was no chance with him to be able to read/recognize the registration number of the offending vehicle. It is noted that he was also accompanied by another person Sh. Gyasuddin at the time of accident and there is nothing on record to suggest that he was an illiterate person and could not have read the alphabets comprising the registration number. It is also noted that Sh. Gyasuddin has also been cited as one of the eye witness as part of the charge sheet. It cannot be ignored that the specifications about offending vehicle were duly mentioned in the complaint of father of injured leading to the registration of FIR, even though, he was not present at the spot of the offending vehicle was purportedly accident and identified only on the basis of particulars provided by eye witness Abdul Salam and eye witness Gyasuddin. It is also pertinent to mention the contextual circumstance has no major contradictions in the FIR, petition or in the testimony of eye witness. PW-2 Abdul Salam also testified that his statement was duly recorded by the police officials at Colambia Asia Hospital and there is no reason to conclude that he would not have the narrative about mode, manner and therefore, MAC.APP. 555/2025 revealed the registration number of the offending vehicle as part of his statement. It is corroborated by the fact, as he clarified that he was called in the police station for identification of the offending vehicle even though, by that time, formal FIR was not registered. There are only three alphabets which were to be identified and even if the witness was able to broadly remember the letter form, that would have served the purpose.”4

#23. The Tribunal correctly noted that its task was to arrive at a finding on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and not on the criminal standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Tribunal is not bound by the strict rules of pleadings and evidence, and its conclusions must be founded on a comparatively lower evidentiary threshold. This legal position is well settled by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.5, Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC6, and in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC7.

#24. I am unpersuaded by the alleged inconsistency between the MLC, FIR, and the evidence led before the Tribunal. The MLC issued by Columbia Asia Hospital on 14.08.2016 records that the injured was brought to the hospital in an unconscious and gasping condition. It is, therefore, evident that the history noted in the MLC was not furnished by the claimant himself, but was recorded on the basis of information provided by others at the time of admission. The alleged discrepancy was also not put to the witness in the cross-examination. In the absence of any other supporting material, the mere variance in recorded history in the MLC, cannot be treated as a fatal discrepancy, so as to undermine the claim.