Pillion Rider Is Best Witness: Supreme Court Restores Compensation, Faults High Court for Discarding Eyewitness Testimony in Fatal Road Accident

“Police Documents Not Discardable, Nor Is Widow’s Account”— Supreme Court Affirms Insurance Liability, Upholds Tribunal’s Award in Motor Accident Case. In a pivotal ruling Supreme Court of India decisively reinstated the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), quashing a contrary decision by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had denied relief to the claimants. The Court emphatically ruled that the credible testimony of a deceased’s widow, who was the pillion rider and direct eyewitness, could not be brushed aside merely due to contradictory statements recorded during police investigation.

The case titled Suhagrani & Others v. Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. involved the tragic demise of Nathuram Ahirwar in a road accident on 24 September 2021. The claimants — his wife and three children — had secured an award of ₹12,43,324 from the MACT, Deori, District Sagar. However, the High Court, on appeal by the insurance company, set aside this award doubting the veracity of the accident circumstances and absolved the insurer of liability.

Delivering the judgment, Justice Aravind Kumar speaking for the Bench, faulted the High Court for ignoring direct evidence. “PW-1, the wife of the deceased who was the pillion rider, was the best witness to the occurrence. She was present at the time of the accident. Her testimony cannot be lightly discarded simply because she didn’t note the vehicle number in the first instance,” the Court observed.

The Supreme Court took strong exception to the High Court’s reliance on the police statement of PW-2 (the deceased’s son), noting that PW-2 had “categorically denied during cross-examination having made any such statement to police” that his father had fallen from the motorcycle without involvement of another vehicle. The Court pointed out that “the investigating police officer who recorded the statement (Ex-D1) was never examined by the insurer, and hence the High Court fell into patent error in relying on unsubstantiated police records.”

The Court relied on documentary evidence placed on record by the claimants including the MLC report, death report, FIR, and charge sheet which indicated that the death had resulted from rash and negligent driving of a mini truck. The Court said, “The filing of a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle is a material fact that could not have been ignored. The High Court’s inference disbelieving the occurrence is therefore unsustainable.”

On the issue of compensation, the appellants had sought enhancement, claiming higher agricultural income. However, the Court declined, holding, “Though it is asserted that deceased earned ₹10 to ₹20 lakh annually through agriculture, no documentary evidence has been provided. Agricultural land remains with the family; thus, loss of income is minimal except for possible supervision costs.”

The Bench also factored in the deceased’s pension and reasoned, “Even if pension income is lost, it would not have been a total deprivation. There is no evidence of full pension discontinuation, and hence the loss of dependency calculated by the Tribunal adequately accounts for these variables.”

Consequently, the compensation of ₹12,43,324 as awarded by the MACT was restored in full. However, the Court modified the apportionment of compensation, allocating 85% of the sum to the widow and 15% equally among the three adult children. The Court explained, “Given the adult status of the children, a larger share should rightly go to the widow, who was primarily dependent on the deceased.”

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled:
“The judgment of the High Court absolving the insurer is set aside. The MACT’s award stands restored with a modification in apportionment. The insurer shall be liable to satisfy the compensation awarded, along with interest as per the Tribunal’s direction.”

The Court’s reasoning reinforces the principle that direct eyewitness evidence, especially from an immediate family member who witnessed the accident, holds substantial value in motor accident claims. Furthermore, the decision sends a clear message that documentary records like police charge sheets and FIRs cannot be brushed aside in favour of unproven statements.

By reinstating the MACT’s order, the Court has ensured rightful compensation to a grieving family and underscored the insurer’s liability where negligence is established.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2025