FIR Is Not Substantive Evidence: MP High Court Fixes Insurer's Liability, Reversing Tribunal's Reliance on Unproved FIR Contents

Anil Kumar Patel v. Smt. Munni Bai Barman and Others | High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur | 1st September, 2026

A Motor Vehicle Act appeal under Section 173(1) against a Claims Tribunal award that exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground, drawn solely from the FIR, that the deceased was travelling on the tractor and died after falling from it. The eyewitness examined by the claimants deposed that the deceased was dancing on the road when the tractor driver negligently ran him over. The High Court held that an FIR is not substantive evidence but merely corroborative and usable for contradiction, and cannot be relied upon over unshaken eyewitness testimony absent examination of the FIR's maker. Applying the three-judge bench ruling in Halappa v. Malik Sab over the two-judge bench ruling in Premlata Shukla, the Court set aside the Tribunal's exoneration of the Insurance Company and held it liable to satisfy the award.

Background

1. The claimants sought compensation for the death of Ramcharan, who died on 11.10.2016 when a tractor being driven by Pramod Yadav ran over him during a Durga idol immersion procession.
2. The FIR, lodged by the deceased's uncle Bedilal (who was not examined as a witness), stated that the deceased was sitting on the tractor and fell from it.
3. The claimants' eyewitness, Ram Verma alias Ashu, who was himself injured in the incident, deposed that he and the deceased were dancing in front of the tractor when the driver negligently ran over the deceased.
4. The final police report (Exhibit P-1) and charge-sheet against the driver under Section 304-A IPC also recorded that the deceased and the eyewitness were dancing on the road at the time of the accident.
5. The Claims Tribunal, relying on the FIR's account alone (without it being duly proved), held the deceased was a gratuitous passenger sitting on the tractor/trolley, and exonerated the Insurance Company from liability while awarding compensation against the owner and driver.
6. The claimant/owner appealed, relying on Halappa v. Malik Sab, (2018) 12 SCC 15, arguing the Tribunal ought to have relied on evidence led before it rather than the FIR.

Court's Observations

1. An FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence; it is only corroborative and may be used for contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, and its contents cannot be treated as proved merely by exhibiting it.
2. Neither witness examined on behalf of the claimants was confronted in cross-examination with a specific suggestion that the deceased was sitting on the tractor; the only suggestion was of negligent driving, which the eyewitness denied.
3. The Insurance Company, to establish that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, ought to have examined the maker of the FIR (Bedilal) or an independent eyewitness, but failed to do so.
4. Relying on Halappa v. Malik Sab, (2018) 12 SCC 15 (a three-judge Bench), the Court held that a Tribunal's finding of fact based on substantive evidence cannot be reversed purely on the strength of an unproved FIR.
5. The Insurance Company's reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla, (2007) 13 SCC 476 (a two-judge Bench) was distinguished on facts, and in any event, the three-judge Bench ruling in Halappa would prevail over the two-judge Bench ruling.
6. The Tribunal's finding exonerating the Insurance Company was held legally unsustainable and set aside; the appeal was partly allowed, with the Insurance Company held liable to satisfy the award, the rest of the award remaining intact.

Legal Provisions Discussed

1. Section 173(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Section 145, Indian Evidence Act (evidentiary value of FIR).
3. Halappa v. Malik Sab, (2018) 12 SCC 15.
4. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla and Others, (2007) 13 SCC 476.
5. Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another v. M.K. Subba and Others, 2010 SCC OnLine Sikk 36.

Case Details :

Court Name: High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur

Case Number: Misc. Appeal No. 2884 of 2019

Case / Party Name: Anil Kumar Patel v. Smt. Munni Bai Barman and Others

Coram / Judges: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ratnesh Chandra Singh Bisen

Date of Decision: 1st September, 2026

Letters Patent / Appeals (if any): Appeal under Section 173(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against award dated 20.02.2019 in M.V.C. No.2842/16