Supreme Court Prioritizes Eyewitness Account Over Police Statement in Accident Case
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the testimony of the eyewitness (PW-1) and documentary evidence (FIR, charge sheet) while relying on an unproven police statement (Ex-D1). It reinstated the MACT's compensation award, ruling that the insurer failed to disprove negligence by the offending vehicle's driver under Section 166 of the MV Act. The Court emphasized that non-examination of additional witnesses or delayed reporting was not fatal to the claim. Compensation of ₹12.43 lakhs was upheld, with 85% apportioned to the deceased's wife.
Facts Of The Case:
On September 24, 2021, Nathuram Ahirwar was riding a motorcycle with his wife (PW-1) as a pillion rider when their vehicle was allegedly hit from behind by a mini-truck (APE pickup) bearing registration MP 04...