Divisional Manager The National Insurance Company Ltd. Sujata Complex vs Meermohiddin S/o. Ibrahim Jamadar Since Deceased By His Lrs.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 163-A and 173(1) - Proof of involvement of offending vehicle - Standard of proof - Preponderance of probabilities - In motor accident claim petitions, the required proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt; however, the claimants must still establish the nexus between the accident and the offending vehicle (Paras 34, 35, 57).

(B) Evidence - Value of Charge-sheet - The filing of a charge-sheet against a driver is corroborative evidence and not final proof; the Tribunal should not be a silent spectator and must independently ascertain the truth to determine whether the vehicle was involved, especially when doubts arise regarding the genuineness of the charge-sheet (Paras 33, 38, 52).

(C) Insurance Claims - False Implication - Where the initial complaint and spot panchanama describe a self-accident and the offending vehicle is implicated only after a significant delay, and the sole eyewitness provides contradictory testimony by admitting in the claim petition that his denial of the accident in criminal proceedings was the truth, it establishes false implication of the vehicle (Paras 21, 22, 27, 58).

(D) Legal Principle - Admissibility of Documents - A party cannot rely on a favorable portion of a document and deny other portions regarding the manner of the accident; the document must be considered in its entirety (Paras 39, 40).

Facts of the case:
A claim petition was filed for compensation following the death of a motorcycle rider. The initial FIR and spot panchanama indicated the rider had dashed against an electric pole due to his own negligence, without any mention of another vehicle. A vehicle was implicated and seized about a month after the incident. The Tribunal awarded compensation after a remand from the Apex Court, which was subsequently challenged by the insurer alleging fraud and false implication, while the claimants sought enhancement of the award.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the eyewitness provided contradictory testimony, admitting in the claim petition that his testimony in the criminal case—where he denied any knowledge of the accident—was the truth. The initial statements by the pillion rider and police records did not support the involvement of the offending vehicle, establishing a collusion to falsely implicate the vehicle.

Issues: 1. Whether the insurer is entitled to contend that the accident involving the offending vehicle is not established? 2. Whether the use of the offending vehicle in causing the accident is established? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation?

Ratio Decidendi: Claimants must prove the involvement of the offending vehicle on a preponderance of probabilities. A charge-sheet is not absolute proof. When the initial evidence, such as the FIR and panchanama, describes a self-accident and the subsequent implication of a vehicle is contradicted by the witness's own admissions and the absence of damages on the vehicles, the claim is unsustainable.

Result: MFA No.102865/2015 allowed by setting aside the judgment and award; MFA CROB. No.100040/2016 dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Claim under Section 163-A Motor Vehicles Act for death in road accident — Insurer appeals on false implication — Claimants cross-object for enhancement. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )

2. Insurer contends vehicle falsely implicated and claimants failed to prove involvement; claimants contend accident proved and compensation insufficient. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )

3. Court scrutinized evidence, found contradictions in eyewitness testimony, held claimants failed to prove involvement of offending vehicle on preponderance of probabilities. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 )

4. In MV Act claims, proof required is preponderance of probabilities; charge-sheet not conclusive; court must scrutinize when fraud alleged. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 52 , 53 , 57 , 58 )

5. MFA allowed, award set aside, cross-objection dismissed, deposit refunded to insurer. (Para 62 )

6. Can the insurer challenge the factum of accident after a Supreme Court remand?

Yes, because the remand was for fresh determination on all grounds, not limited to quantum; the court must examine the matter afresh. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )

7. What is the standard of proof in Motor Vehicles Act claim petitions?

Preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, but claimants must still prove involvement of the offending vehicle. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 57 )

8. Can a charge-sheet alone prove the involvement of a vehicle in an accident?

No, a charge-sheet is only corroborative evidence; the Tribunal must independently assess all evidence and cannot rely solely on it. (Para 38 , 52 )

9. What is the evidentiary value of a witness who gives contradictory statements in criminal and civil proceedings?

Such contradictions can discredit the witness; the court may consider prior inconsistent statements when admitted in evidence. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 47 , 48 , 49 )

10. Can a claimant rely on part of a document and ignore other parts?

No, a claimant cannot approbate and reprobate; if they rely on a document like a complaint, they must accept its entire contents. (Para 40 , 58 )

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

MFA No.102865/2015 is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, ‘M.V. Act’) by the insurer and MFA CROB.No.100040/2016 is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 10.07.2015 in MVC No.450/2003 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi (in short, ‘ the Tribunal’).

2. The insurer has filed the appeal on the ground that offending vehicle is falsely implicated in the case and claimants have filed the cross-objection not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

3. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they were before the Tribunal for sake of convenience and clarity.

4. MVC No.450/2003 was filed under Section 163-A of M.V. Act by the claimants praying for compensation in respect of death of the son of claimants No.1 and 2 in a road traffic accident that has taken place on 11.05.2003 at about 01.00 p.m. The contention of claimants is that on 11.05.2003 at about 01.00 p.m. the deceased Azar was riding Hero-Honda Motorcycle bearing No.KA-25/S-2072 along with one pillion rider; at about 03.00 p.m. on Koratagere-Bengaluru road near Shani- Devara Temple, a tempo-trax bearing No.KA-25/N-1786 came with high speed, dashed against the motorcycle with rashness and negligence and due to that Azar-rider of the motorcycle lost balance and hit to the electric pole and thereby the accident happened. Azar sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Tumkur. On the way to hospital, he died. Hence, claimants claimed compensation under different heads.

5. Respondent No.1 has filed objection statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that its driver was having valid and effective driving licence and thus it is validly insured with respondent No.2. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Respondent No.1 in his objection statement admitted about the involvement of tempo-trax in the accident near Shani-Devara Temple, but denied other averments of the claim petition regarding income and age of the deceased, etc.

7. Respondent No.2 filed its objection statement, wherein it contended that the claim petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. It took further contention that the alleged tempo-trax bearing No.KA-25/N-1786 (in short, ‘offending vehicle’) was not involved in the accident. Only to get compensation, claimants have impleaded the said vehicle. The accident has taken place due to the sheer negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and he is the cause for accident. Driver of the tempo-trax was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date and time of alleged accident. Hence, it is not liable to pay compensation.

8. After framing issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments, initially the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that claimants failed to establish the accident involving the offending vehicle. 9. Said judgment was under challenge before this Court in MFA No.377/2007. Said MFA was dismissed confirming the judgment of dismissal and award of the Tribunal. Against the said judgment, the claimants have preferred appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9222/2013 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16656/2012). Said Civil Appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh determination of the claim filed by the appellants/claimants.

10. After such remand, the Tribunal has passed the judgment and award holding that the claimants have established the involvement of offending vehicle and further held that claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,70,000/- under different heads.

11. Said judgment is under challenge in these appeals. The insurer challenges the award itself on the ground that offending vehicle is falsely implicated in the case. The claimants have filed cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.

12. Heard arguments