‘Absence of FIR, charge-sheet no ground to reject accident claim’

HC Kohima Bench dismisses insurer’s appeal against MACT award in Dimapur fatal accident caseMorung Express NewsDimapur | October 12The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) has dismissed an appeal by an insurance company against anMACT award holding that the absence of a formal First Information Report (FIR), police charge-sheet or investigative material was not, in the circumstances of the case, sufficient ground to set aside the compensation award.Justice Nchumbemo Mozhui passed the judgment on October 12, upholding the September 2, 2025 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dimapur, in a case involving a pedestrian who died following a road accident.The pedestrian was struck by a motorcycle near New Dhansiri Bridge, Dimapur, on June 19, 2024, and succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment at a private hospital on June 25.Subsequently, his wife and two minor children sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The MACTDimapurawarded compensationholding the New India Assurance Co Ltd, the insurer of the vehicle owner, liable.Challenging the award, the insurer argued that the claimants had failed to establish negligence on the balance of probabilities and stated that the incident was documented only through a General Diary (GD) entry, without a formal FIR under the relevant penal provisions, a charge-sheet or police investigation.Rejecting the argument, the High Court noted that the vehicle owner had testified before the Tribunal that his vehicle, driven by another person, was at fault. The insurer had neither produced contrary evidence nor successfully challenged the claimants’ evidence.The Court agreed with an earlier decision in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd v. State of Assam and Others, observing that remanding motor accident compensation cases to police stations merely because they originated from GD entries would undermine the objectives of the Motor Vehicles Act, a beneficial social welfare legislation. Such remands could delay the timely relief intended for accident victims and the families of deceased, it held. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, the Court reiterated that motor accident claims must be assessed on the preponderance of probabilities rather than the stricter standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.The Court also noted that the insurer had neither disputed the vehicle’s insurance coverage nor pleaded a violation of policy conditions before the Tribunal.Accordingly,finding no merit in the appeal, Justice Mozhui dismissed it and directed the Registry to return the trial court records expeditiously.