Skip to main content

Standard of proof in Motor Accident Claim Cases is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt

In Anita Sharma & Ors. vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur whereby the first appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's  award was allowed and the Claim Petition was rejected, whereas the appeal filed by the Appellant-claimants for enhancement of compensation was consequently dismissed.

The issue was that road accident and eventual death had occurred while travelling in a car which had a head-on collusion with a truck which could not be traced. Since all the occupants of the car were injured, nobody noted the registration number of the truck.

The insurance company in its separate written statement took the preliminary objection that as per the police investigation and first information report, the accident was caused by an unknown truck which hit the car and, therefore, the claim petition filed against the owner of the car or its insurer was contrary to law. The factual averments made in the Claim Petition were denied for want of knowledge.

In reaching its verdict, the Tribunal had relied upon the statement of the eye-witness Ritesh Pandey, according to whom the owner-cum-driver, Sanjeev Kapoor was driving the car at a very fast speed when it overtook a vehicle and collided head-on against the oncoming truck. The Tribunal, thus, assigned liability for the accident upon the Respondents and partly allowed the Claim Petition with a compensation of Rs. 16,08,000.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's award and dismissed the claim petition choosing to disbelieve the eye-witness. Contrary to the eye-witness account whom the High Court assumed to be siding with the claimants for personal gains, the High Court found favour with the written statement of Sanjeev Kapoor who according to the High Court was also the author of the FIR. The High Court opined that the person who has filed the FIR cannot also be the guilty party.

The Supreme Court on appeal however found no cause to disbelieve the eye-witness, nor was the court prepared to assume that the FIR had been filed by Sanjeev Kapoor. Rather the Supreme Court found it significant that Sanjeev Kapoor refused to take the witness stand when he has been identified as responsible by the claimants and that the insurers did not bother to cross examine the eye witness.

The Supreme Court found severals faults in the approach of the High Court :-

1) The High Court was not sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot, or the appellant­ claimants’ hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident which took place many hundreds of kilometers away in an altogether different State.

2) The failure of the Respondents to cross examine the eyewitness or confront him with their version, despite adequate opportunity, must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part. They did not even suggest the witness that he was siding with the claimants. The High Court has failed to appreciate the legal effect of this absence of cross­examination of a crucial witness

3) The failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non­examination of some best eye­witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true.

4) The author of the FIR (as per its judgment, the owner­cum­driver) had not been examined as a witness, and hence adverse inference ought to be drawn against the appellant­claimants, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Not only is the owner­cum­driver not the author of the FIR, but instead he is one of the contesting respondents in the Claim Petition who, along with insurance company, is an interested party with a pecuniary stake in the result of the case. If the owner­cum­driver of the car were setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but the truck driver’s carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place. The fact that Sanjeev Kapoor chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault. The High Court, therefore, ought not to have shifted the burden of proof.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more