Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points: In motor accident claim cases, the court must apply the principle of preponderance of probability rather than the stricter test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (!) A witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that the police did not record their statement during the investigation. (!) The Supreme Court generally does not reappreciate evidence in appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, unless the findings are perverse or manifestly wrong. (!) Evidence indicating physical damage to the vehicle (such as a broken bumper or dented grill) recorded in the Mahazar makes it impossible to conclude that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. (!) The findings of the lower courts were set aside because they were perverse in disbelieving eyewitness testimony and ignoring the abundance of evidence pointing to the car's involvement. (!) The appeal was allowed, and compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with 9% interest was awarded to the appellants. (!) If the payment is not made within three months, the interest rate on the award amount shall increase to 12% per annum. (!)

Sajeena Ikhbal vs Mini Babu George - 2024 Supreme(SC) 943

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 943

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Sajeena Ikhbal – Appellant
Versus
Mini Babu George – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Mr. Dinny Thomas, Adv. Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. P. Srinivasan, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

In motor accident claim cases, the court must apply the principle of preponderance of probability rather than the stricter test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. (!)
A witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that the police did not record their statement during the investigation. (!)
The Supreme Court generally does not reappreciate evidence in appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, unless the findings are perverse or manifestly wrong. (!)
Evidence indicating physical damage to the vehicle (such as a broken bumper or dented grill) recorded in the Mahazar makes it impossible to conclude that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. (!)
The findings of the lower courts were set aside because they were perverse in disbelieving eyewitness testimony and ignoring the abundance of evidence pointing to the car's involvement. (!)
The appeal was allowed, and compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with 9% interest was awarded to the appellants. (!)
If the payment is not made within three months, the interest rate on the award amount shall increase to 12% per annum. (!)

JUDGMENT :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 3331 of 2016 dismissing the appellants’ appeal while affirming the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,¹[‘MACT’] by which the appellants’ claim was dismissed. The parties are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the claim petition.

2. The widow, minor child and parents of the deceased Ikhbal are the appellants in the present proceedings. Ikhbal died in an accident on 10.06.2013 being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding in his motorcycle from Thodupuzha to Muttom. He died of the injuries sustained in the said accident which allegedly occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the car. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the car respectively. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 contested the claim petition while respondent no. 1 remained ex-parte.

3. According to the appellants, while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle and reached near ‘Mrala’ junction, a K.S.R.T.C. bus, which was going in front, stopped at the bus stop. The deceased attempted to overtake the bus and a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 943

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRASajeena Ikhbal – AppellantVersusMini Babu George – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Sajeena Ikhbal VS Mini Babu George - 2024 7 Supreme 554

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Chandrakala - 2021 Supreme(Raj) 2349

Depot. Manager, APSRTC, VSP VS Villuri Padmavathi - 2023 Supreme(AP) 60

Shiv Shanker VS Jagat Prakash Sharma - 2022 Supreme(All) 168

Maharajsingh vs Ramesh Rathaur - 2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2093

New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Rupin W/o Late Sh. Vishal - 2025 Supreme(Del) 273

Sharda Devi VS Khatima Fibers - 2023 Supreme(UK) 649

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Rep by its Divisional Manager VS M. Bharathi, W/o. Late M. Bhaskar @ Bachi - 2024 Supreme(AP) 68

Geeta VS Surendra Nath Chauhan - 2023 Supreme(UK) 570

In the Matter of: Rahila Momim VS Bajaj Alianz Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 18

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Sajeena Ikhbal – Appellant
Versus
Mini Babu George – Respondent