The Jharkhand High Court, in a detailed judgment, dismissed an appeal by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., upholding a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of ₹11.45 lakh in compensation to the widow and family of a carpenter killed in a motorcycle accident. The court emphasized that the insurer’s failure to present contrary evidence or clarify discrepancies justified drawing an adverse inference against it.
Case Background
The case stemmed from a tragic road accident on December 24, 2021, near Rangabandh More, G.T. Road, in Dhanbad district. The victim, 58-year-old Ijarat Ansari, was crossing the road when he was struck by a motorcycle (registration number JH-10BQ-9650), reportedly driven rashly and negligently. Ansari sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to S.N.M.M.C.H., Dhanbad. He was later referred to RIMS, Ranchi, where he succumbed to his injuries on January 2, 2022.
Ansari’s widow, Sundari Bibi, along with her family, filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for their loss. The offending motorcycle was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Tribunal’s Decision
The MACT in Dhanbad awarded ₹11,45,932 to the claimants, holding the driver of the motorcycle responsible for the accident. The Tribunal relied on the FIR, charge sheet, and eyewitness accounts, including the testimony of Md. Khalid Ashraf, who had witnessed the accident. The court also considered the postmortem report, which corroborated the timeline and nature of injuries.
The Tribunal directed the insurer to pay the compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
Appeal by the Insurer
Aggrieved by the award, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed an appeal before the High Court, arguing that the motorcycle was falsely implicated. The insurer pointed to discrepancies between the FIR and the inquest report, which suggested the involvement of a Hywa truck rather than the motorcycle. The company also contended that the claimant’s evidence lacked credibility and sought to absolve itself of liability.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Subhash Chand rejected the insurer’s arguments, noting significant lapses in its case. The court highlighted that the insurer failed to summon the investigating officer to reconcile discrepancies between the inquest report and the FIR. Furthermore, the insurance company did not present any evidence to counter the claimant’s version of events or discredit the eyewitness testimony.
“The laches on the part of the Insurance Company in not adducing contrary evidence or summoning the Investigating Officer invite adverse inference against it,” the court observed.
The court reaffirmed the Tribunal’s reliance on the charge sheet, FIR, and eyewitness testimony. It noted that the charge sheet specifically named Mukhtar Ansari, the motorcyclist, as the accused. The eyewitness, Md. Khalid Ashraf, provided a consistent account of the accident, which was unshaken during cross-examination. The postmortem report further corroborated the claimants’ evidence.
Key Legal Principle: Adverse Inference
The court reiterated a key legal principle: when a party fails to produce evidence within its control or clarify contradictions in its case, the court is justified in drawing an adverse inference against it. The insurer’s reliance on the inquest report, without corroborative evidence or testimony, was deemed insufficient.
“Adverse inference must follow when a party deliberately withholds material evidence or fails to substantiate its claims with clarity,” the judgment noted.
Verdict
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the MACT’s award of ₹11.45 lakh in compensation to the claimants, affirming the Tribunal’s findings of negligence and liability. The judgment brings closure to the bereaved family, ensuring financial relief amid their loss.
Representation and Case Details
– Appellant: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
– Represented by Advocate Bibhash Sinha
– Respondents: Sundari Bibi and family
– Represented by Advocate Md. Nasim Akhtar
– Case Reference: Miscellaneous Appeal No. 434 of 2023
