Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Geeta Dubey & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14668 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8551 of 2024)
Decided On : 18-12-2024
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Death in motor accident – Compensation of Rs. 50,41,289/- awarded by MACT – Award set aside by High Court in appeal – Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, is essentially in nature of first appeal like Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code – High Court is under legal obligation to decide all issues both on facts and law after appreciating entire evidence – In a First Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, High Court has made a short shrift of matter and by a summary order reversed detailed award passed by MACT – Since incident is of year 2018, and already 6 years had elapsed, any further delay will only compound agony of already devastated family – Except for a bare assertion that vehicle has been wrongly involved, insurance company which has setup a plea of collusion has done nothing to make good its case – Judgment of High Court is wholly untenable. (Paras 16, 17, 18 and 19)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Death in motor accident – Compensation of Rs. 50,41,289/- awarded by MACT – Award set aside by High Court in appeal – In claim cases, in case accident is disputed or involvement of vehicle concerned is put in issue, claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt – Applying test of preponderance of probability, claimants have established their case that it was truck in question which was involved in accident with car wherein deceased was travelling – Claimants having discharged initial onus, if insurance company had a case that there was collusion between driver/owner of truck and claimants, it ought to discharge that burden – There is no case for insurance company that police officer also colluded – Investigation by police has resulted in charge-sheet being filed – Claimants have clearly pleaded in claim petition that age of deceased was 55 years and proved the same – No evidence has been adduced by insurance company to show that age was 58 years – MACT has relied on age, as mentioned in post-mortem report, as 55 years and has applied appropriate multiplier of 11 – Judgment of High Court quashed and set aside and award passed by MACT restored. (Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 27)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal, filed by claimants, assails judgment and final order dated 24.08.2023 passed by High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Only ground on which High Court has set aside award is that claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove aspect of accident taking place with vehicle implicated in the case. So holding, appeal of insurance company was allowed and award was completely set aside.
Findings of Court:
Only other point raised in memo of appeal before High Court by insurance company is that deceased was about 58 years of age and that multiplier of 9 ought to have been applied instead of 11. High Court had no occasion to discuss the same as it allowed insurance company’s appeal on aspect of the vehicle not being involved in the accident.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
JUDGMENT :
(K.V. Viswanathan, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal, filed by the claimants, assails the judgment and final order dated 24.08.2023 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 2022. By the said appeal, the High Court, by a cryptic order, set aside the award of the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maihar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh dated 25.03.2021 (in short ‘MACT’). The MACT had, by the said award, allowed the claim of appellant no. 1 and 2 herein, who are the wife and son of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,41,289/- against the respondents jointly and severally.
3. The only ground on which the High Court has set aside the award is that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle implicated in the case i.e. Truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197. So holding, the appeal of the insurance company was allowed and the award was completely set aside.
Brief facts :-
4. According to the claimants, Chakradhar Dubey - the deceased was posted as Assistant Post-Master, Post Office Sarlanagar, Tehsil Maihar. The deceased was returning to his house at Purani Basti, Maihar sitting in car bearing No. MP-19-CB-5879 of his friend Narayan Das Tiwari, after his duty, on 18.06.2018. At about 08:15 PM, one kilometer ahead of Sonwari Toll Plaza, respondent no. 2 herein, who was the driver of the vehicle of respondent no. 3, while driving the vehicle, (a truck bearing registration no. MP-19-HA-1197) in a rash and negligent manner hit the car in which the deceased was sitting. As a result, Chakradhar Dubey suffered serious injuries and his spine was broken. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Maihar for treatment.
5. On 21.06.2018, the First Information Report in Crime No.352 of 2018 was registered at Maihar Police Station under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. We have perused the First Information Report and we find the following recorded therein:
I am a resident of Housing Board Colony, Mehar, Police Station Mehar. I was coming with my father Narayan Das Tiwari son of Indramani Tiwari, aged 49 years, resident of Housing Board Colony Mehar, Chakradhar Dubey son of Late Liladhar Dubey, aged 49 years, resident of Chaurasia Mohalla, Purani Basti Mehar and Bharatlal Tiwari from Sarlanagar at around 08:15 p.m. of 18/06/18 in my car No. U.V. MP 19CB5879. As soon as we reached around 1 Km. ahead of Sonwari Toll Plaza, an unknown truck came from behind in high speed and hit the car. As a result of which, the car overturned and badly damaged. Due to hit, injured Chakradhar Dubey sustained injuries on his waist, throat and shoulder and Narayan Das Tiwari sustained serious injuries on his left palm. The driver of the truck ran away taking the truck from there. The injured were taken to CHC Mehar in an auto and were admitted there. After taking treatment, I have come at police station to lodge the report today on 21.06.18. The report was registered for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 IPC and investigation was taken up and handed over to beat incharge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
6. What is important to note is the FIR does mention material particulars like time of the accident, the place of the accident and also the fact that it was an unknown truck which had hit the car, and about the injuries sustained by the deceased.
7. The claim petition thereafter sets out that after obtaining treatment at Maihar Civil Hospital, Chakradhar Dubey was treated at Nagpur Arneja Institute of Cardiology Private Limited from 19.06.2018 and when he did not recover, he was taken back to Maihar, where he died on 28.06.2018.
8. The claimant widow further avers that since she was busy with the treatment and thereafter due to the death, the programs relating thereto, she was not perfectly fit mentally to obtain particulars and file a claim. The claimant widow states that on being physically fit
(1) Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, is essentially in nature of first appeal like Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code – High Court is under legal obligation to decide all issues both o....
In civil proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability, and claimants are not required to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. Th....
The court clarifies the burden of proof in accident claims, stating that evidence must meet the standard of preponderance of probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony suffices to establish vehicle involvement in accident claims, upholding the MACT's award despite insurers' challenges.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
