Statements under Section 161 CrPC Are Not Substantive Evidence—Especially When Eyewitness Is Not Examined: SC Restores Equitable Apportionment of Liability at 50:50

Negligence Cannot Be Inferred from FIR Lodged by Opposing Party Without Investigation:  - Supreme Court of India altering the contributory negligence assessment made by the High Court in a motor accident compensation case. The High Court had fixed 70% negligence on the deceased car driver, but the Supreme Court held that such a finding, based largely on the FIR filed by the lorry driver and an unexamined hearsay statement, was legally unsustainable.

The Court observed: “No reliance can be placed on such FIR to find negligence on the driver of the car,” and instead apportioned liability equally at 50% between both drivers involved.

The case arose from a head-on collision between a car and a lorry, leading to the instant death of the car driver, whose wife and dependents filed a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on fault grounds and awarded a nominal ₹50,000 under Section 140 of the Act, relying heavily on the FIR registered against the deceased.

The High Court, while granting some relief, still imposed 70% contributory negligence on the deceased based on a rough sketch (Exh. B-5) and a Section 161 CrPC statement given by PW-1 (the deceased’s wife), who was not present at the scene and was relaying the account of an unexamined eyewitness.

On the Use of FIR and Unexamined Witness Statements: The Supreme Court strongly cautioned against the uncritical reliance on FIRs, particularly when filed by the opposite party and unaccompanied by proper investigation.
“The crime was registered against the deceased driver of the car, but on the first information supplied by the driver of the lorry. Obviously, no reliance can be placed on such FIR to find negligence on the driver of the car.”

The Court also addressed the problematic evidentiary basis adopted by the High Court. It found fault in placing reliance on a Section 161 CrPC statement by a non-eyewitness: “PW-1 was neither present at the scene of occurrence, nor travelling in the car along with her husband… In addition to the fact that no reliance can be placed on a statement under Section 161 CrPC, the eyewitness who gave such information to PW-1 was also not examined.”

On Apportionment of Contributory Negligence: While acknowledging the deceased car driver’s fault in overtaking, the Court placed equal responsibility on the lorry driver, pointing to compelling physical evidence: “It is also to be noticed that after the collision, the car was dragged to a distance of 20 feet, making it clear that the lorry was driven at a high speed.”
Finding fault on both sides, the bench concluded: “We are hence inclined to find that the contributory negligence on the drivers will be equal… the impact could have been avoided or gravity lessened, if the lorry had been driven in normal speed.”
Accordingly, the Court modified the apportionment of liability to 50% each.

Using the Income Tax Returns to fix annual income at ₹4,50,000 and applying a 40% addition for future prospects, the Court applied a multiplier of 15 (appropriate for age 38), and a 1/4th deduction for personal expenses (considering five dependents).
It cited the decision in New India Assurance Co. v. Somwati, (2020) 9 SCC 644, to allow spousal, filial, and parental consortium: “The wife, the two minor children and the mother who are the claimants… are to be granted ₹40,000/- each for loss of consortium.”

The Court awarded:
•    Loss of dependency: ₹70,87,500
•    Loss of consortium: ₹1,60,000
•    Loss of estate and funeral expenses: ₹30,000
•    Total: ₹72,77,500

With the revised 50% negligence apportionment, the final award payable to the claimants stood at ₹36,38,750, with 7% interest per annum from the date of claim petition. It was further directed that the interim compensation under Section 140 MV Act shall be deducted.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that legal findings of negligence must rest on admissible and corroborated evidence, not presumptive conclusions drawn from self-serving FIRs or second-hand hearsay. By ensuring a just and balanced apportionment of liability, the Court has fortified the evidentiary standards required in motor accident compensation litigation.

This ruling not only corrects a miscarriage of justice but also serves as an important precedent in ensuring fairness to the deceased and their families, particularly where they are unable to defend themselves.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2025