Presumption As To Genuineness Weighs More In Favour Of Police Investigation Report Than Private Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that when the reliability of a private investigator's report in comparison to the official record of police investigation is examined, “presumption as to genuineness will weigh more in favour of the police investigation report.”Single Judge Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma was dealing with a case involving an appeal preferred by an insurance company challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter, “MACT”) regarding a road accident, where the insurance company undertook and relied on its own private investigation. Questioning the authenticity of the report of the investigator appointed by the insurance company, the Court observed,“The private investigation got done by the Insurance Company through its own either employee or paid agency does not overweigh the authenticity attached to the record placed by the investigating agency, that too when spoken by a competent witness like P.W-2. Therefore, the objection of the insurance company is ignored…”The case came before the Court when the insurance company filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging an award passed by the MACT back in 2009. The case involved the death of Sri Chavva Jayarami Reddy in a motor vehicle accident. His family had filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 475 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, seeking ₹40,00,000 as compensation. The MACT awarded them ₹19,50,000 with 6% interest per annum, holding both the vehicle owner and the insurance company liable. Aggrieved by this, the insurance company appealed before the High Court, disputing both the liability and the compensation amount.The High Court dealt with the following issues in the appeal- (i) whether the deceased died due to the accident with the involvement of offending vehicle and negligence of its driver; (ii) whether the claimants were entitled to compensation and the extent of the quantum, and (iii) the liability of the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle.With respect to the first issue, the Court rejected the insurance company's objection and subsequently upheld the MACT's findings regarding the deceased's death in the accident, the involvement of the offending vehicle, and the negligence of its driver.Additionally, relying on, inter alia, the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr (2009 (6) SCC 121), the Court emphasised the need for awarding "just compensation," which should not be solely based on the Tribunal's discretion but must be just, fair, adequate, and equitable, considering the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The Court modified the compensation awarded by the MACT after evaluating multiple factors such as Loss of Dependency, Loss of Consortium, Funeral and Obsequies Expenses, Loss of Estate, Attendant Charges and Transportation Expenses, and Pain and Suffering, and concluded that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs.19,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, holding the insurance company liable to pay the same.Case Number: M.A.C.M.A.No.2242 of 2016Date of Judgment: 07.03.2025Click Here To Read/Download Order

Presumption As To Genuineness Weighs More In Favour Of Police Investigation Report Than Private Investigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Saahas Arora

Tags