Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 943

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Mini Babu George & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(s). 7881 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 25114 of 2019)
Decided On : 17-10-2024

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.

IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident – A witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved in a motor accident case only on the ground that police have not recorded his statement during investigation – In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, court has to apply principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in motor accident – Dismissal of claim application on the ground that appellants have failed to prove that accident occurred due to negligent driving of driver nor it is proved that car was involved in accident – It was case of appellants from inception that deceased was hit by subject car which came driven from opposite direction as a result of which he was thrown on road and sustained fatal injuries – Closure report records that there was damage to car on account of accident – Courts below have recorded finding of non-involvement of car in accident by disbelieving eyewitness, only on the ground that in police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness – A witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved in a motor accident case only on the ground that police have not recorded his statement during investigation – There is abundance of evidence pointing to fact that car was involved in accident and courts below have not considered evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non- involvement of car in the accident – In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, court has to apply principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply test of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence available in present case tested on principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that car was involved in accident – Finding of courts below set aside – Compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with 9% interest awarded. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal by Special Leave – In an appeal under Article 136 of Constitution of India, ordinarily Supreme Court will not engage itself in reappreciation of evidence as such but can certainly examine evidence on record to consider challenge to findings recorded by Tribunal or High Court, being perverse or replete with error apparent on face of record and being manifestly wrong. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 3331 of 2016 dismissing the appellants’ appeal while affirming Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which appellants’ claim was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, grill fitted above the front bumper is curved. With such damages to front side of body of car, it is impossible to record a finding that car was not involved in accident.
Result : Appeal allowed.

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 at that time the subject car driven by respondent no. 2 came from the opposite direction and hit at the motorcycle of the deceased on which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was an employee as U.D. Clerk in Registration Department and had monthly income of Rs. 21,456/-.

4. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 denied the involvement of the car in the accident. According to them, respondent no. 2 was driving the car carefully and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased because he attempted to overtake the parked K.S.R.T.C. bus. In the process, the motorcycle hit on the bus and the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to the hospital by respondent no. 2 who reached the spot soon after the accident. The car of respondent no. 2 did not hit the deceased’s motorcycle. The respondent no. 3 admitted the policy.

5. The appellants examined six witnesses before the MACT while the respondents examined two witnesses. Both the parties exhibited number of documents in their evidence. The MACT assessed the compensation to hold that the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/-. However, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was involved in the accident. The said findings have been affirmed by the High Court.

6. Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that there is ample evidence demonstrating involvement of the car in the subject accident and the findings to the contrary is utterly perverse. It is argued that the MACT and the High Court as well have recorded the findings adverse to the appellants basing on conjectures and surmises and by complete misreading the evidence. It is vehemently argued that the statement of witnesses have to be read in conjunction with principle of res ipsa loquitur, which the courts below have failed. Learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal to award the sum assessed by the MACT.

7. Per contra, Mr. Atul Nanda, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 3 would submit that the courts below have correctly held that the subject car owned by respondent no. 1 was not involved in the accident. Referring to the statement of witnesses, learned senior counsel has argued that none of the witnesses have seen the car hitting the motorcycle driven by the deceased. It is lastly argued that both the courts below have recorded the findings after careful examination of the evidence which warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

8. Before proceeding to dw

Click Here to Read the rest of this document