The Gujarat High Court dismissed an insurance company’s plea against an order of the Motor Accident’s Claims Tribunal, which had awarded compensation to the relatives of two persons who died in a road accident 33 years ago, and rejected the company’s claim that it was a case of murder.

In doing so, the Court questioned the insurance company’s reliance on a report sent to the magisterial court by the concerned investigating officer, claiming that it wanted to add the crime of murder. It said that apart from relying on this report, the company had not provided any evidence.

A single judge bench of Justice JC Doshi in his order of October 1 said:

“The case of the insurance company is that both deceased were given poison by mixing it in a cup of tea by a certain Ramfal and therefore it is a case of murder simpliciter. The basis for such submission is the report of the IO submitted to the learned JMFC… But notably, the investigating officer has not been examined by the insurance company. Even Mr. Ramfal is not being investigated to determine the insurance company’s case. The insurance company merely relied on the report filed by IO before the learned JMFC for adding an offense and pleaded the case of murder simpliciter. However, filing such a report alone cannot be taken as gospel evidence or evidence to believe that it is a simpliciter murder. On the other hand, based on multiple pieces of evidence, it has been determined that the truck ran over two people and that they both died as a result of multiple injuries. Evidence, to the extent that the wheels of the truck ran over two victims at that moment, whether consciously or unconsciously. In fact, apart from advocating a simpler murder and relying on a report, the insurance company has not provided any evidence”.

Background

The order was passed in an appeal filed by an insurance company against orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which in 2008 had partially allowed two pleas and awarded Rs.2,36,000 and Rs.56,000 respectively with interest of 7.5 %. per year from the date of the pleadings until the realization jointly and severally by the defendants.

According to the FIR registered in 1991, a The truck hit two men near Tarshali bypass on National Highway No.8, where construction of the highway was underway. It was housed under IPC sections 304A (causing death by negligence) read with section 279 (criminal liability for rash or negligent driving or driving of a vehicle on a public road) against an unknown vehicle and unidentified persons, but it turned out that the vehicle ran over two persons, resulting in the deaths of both. The post-mortem report showed multiple injuries on the body of the deceased, which was noted as a reason for the cause of death, and all the injuries mentioned in the report were ante mortem.

Counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal had not considered the statement of one Ramfal discovered by the police (investigation agency) regarding the poisoning of the deceased as a personal vendetta. It was submitted that the tribunal relied on the statement of the post-mortem report and not on the FSL report submitted by the doctor after the autopsy. He further stated that it is a murder disguised as a road accident.

The counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/deceased emphasized that under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claims for damages can be made where injury or death arises out of the use of a motor vehicle. The death of the deceased was a direct result of the truck running over them, which constituted an obvious traffic accident. He further argued that even if the insurance company’s theory is considered valid, it would only support the idea of ​​accidental murder rather than simple murder as the insurance company had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the deceased were poisoned before the truck ran over. them. He argued that, based on this reasoning, the documents recorded by the insurance company were submitted by IO and he was not examined by the insurance company. The tribunal was therefore correct in granting the claim.

Findings

The Court while examining the provision of Section 165 of the Act said that the phrase “arising from the use of motor vehicles” is important. It said the law does not require that claiming damages must always prove that “rash and negligent driving resulted in damage.” It further said that the use of a motor vehicle and the damage and injury arising out of the use of a motor vehicle are sufficient to claim damages under the provisions of the Act.

The Supreme Court referred to the trial court’s decision in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Ashaben Darshansinh Vaghela (2011) which found that “in the absence of evidence that the vehicle accident incident was intentional homicide by the driver, the Claims Tribunal is obliged to award just damages.

Then it held: “In the present case, while advancing a theory of implication of murder, the insurance company has not been able to produce anything in evidence other than a report forwarded by the IO to the learned JMFC. The insurance company failed to investigate Mr Ramfal, the person against whom the allegations were made, to administer poison to both the deceased and an unregistered copy of the viscera report sent to FSL to substantiate that both deceased had previously died . killed and not killed in the traffic accident… Although the insurance company in this case tried to simplify the case of murder, it could not successfully deduce the case from the fact that two persons died because the wheels of the truck ran over them.Merely filing a report for adding an offense of murder would not ipso facto take over the case that both the deceased died due to the use of a motor vehicle.“.

The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the insurance company’s appeal.

Case title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd Via v/s Ramrul @ MunnaLokane Mina & Ors.

Click here to download the order