Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, J.
Peter Godinho & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Cornelins D Souza & Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 41 of 2019
Decided On : 22-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.S. Kakodkar, Advocate for the Appellant, for the Appellant; Ms. C. Afonso, Advocate for Respondent No.2

The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a sensitive and holistic approach in assessing evidence in motor accident claim cases, emphasizing the standard of proof and the inapplicability of strict principles of evidence and standard of proof.

Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Rashness and Negligence - Sunita & Ors. V/s. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors, (2020) 13 SCC 486, Anita Sharma & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., (2021) 1 SCC 171, Parmeshwari V/s. Amir Chand & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 635, Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, (2018) 5 SCC 656, Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. V/s. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 646 - The court discussed the issue of rashness and negligence in the context of motor accident claims, emphasizing the standard of proof and the sensitivity required in assessing evidence. The court highlighted the need for a holistic view and the inapplicability of strict principles of evidence and standard of proof in MACT claim cases.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants challenged the dismissal of their Claim Petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which held that they had not proved the rashness and negligence of the truck driver. The accident resulted in severe injuries to the appellant's husband, who later died. The Tribunal initially rejected the Claim Petition but was directed by the Court to reconsider the issue of rashness and negligence as well as the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the evidence of eyewitnesses and in assessing the standard of proof required for establishing rashness and negligence. The Court reversed the finding on rashness and negligence and awarded compensation to the appellants.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of rashness and negligence, the quantum of compensation, and the assessment of evidence in motor accident claim cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for a sensitive approach in assessing evidence in motor accident claim cases, highlighting the inapplicability of strict principles of evidence and standard of proof. The Court also considered the legal principles established in relevant Supreme Court cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to deposit the awarded compensation within eight weeks. The appellants were entitled to compensation and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the Claim Petition till actual payment.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Kakodkar for the appellants and Ms. C. Afonso for respondent no.2 (Insurance Company).

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao, dismissing the appellants' Claim Petition because she had not succeeded in proving the rashness and negligence on the part of the truck driver.

3. This Claim Petition was initially instituted by Peter Godinho, appellant's husband/father, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 13.11.2022 when he was proceeding from Canacona to Curchorem on his motorcycle. The appellants contend that the truck bearing registration no.KA-19-1381 owned and driven by respondent no.1 dashed this motorcycle due to which Peter sustained severe injuries.

4. There is evidence that Peter suffered orthopedic injuries rendering him 90% disabled. There is also evidence that these injuries resulted in Peter being 100% neurologically disabled. There is evidence about Peter being treated in no less than three hospitals and suffering hospitalization for about 66 days. During the pendency of the Claim Petition, Peter died on 15.09.2009 after suffering for almost seven years.

5. The Tribunal had initially rejected the Claim Petition on the ground that the appellants had failed to prove rashness and negligence. However, this Court set this award aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. The Tribunal was directed to consider the issue of rashness and negligence as also the quantum of compensation.

6. On remand, the Tribunal has made the impugned award, again holding that the issue of rashness and negligence was not proved but determining compensation at ?81,760/- against the claimed amount of ?1.00 lakh.

7. As regards the first issue of rashness and negligence, the Tribunal is correct that the evidence of Peter's wife Greta is not of much significance because she was not an eyewitness to the accident. However, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the evidence of Assis Dias (AW2), an eyewitness to the accident. Further, the Tribunal has also not paid adequate attention to the evidence of Surendra Naik (AW4), the Head Constable, who visited the accident site soon after it was reported, drew out the panchanama, and ultimately lodged an FIR against the truck driver for rash and negligent driving. Finally, there is evidence that the truck driver was charge-sheeted though the Magistrate eventually acquitted him.

8. The acquittal judgment, which is on record, is mainly based on the non-examination of Peter (victim). There is clear evidence on record that Peter was bedridden from the time of the accident and not in his senses to give his statement. Greata, his wife, deposed to this aspect, and there was no serious challenge to this position. Therefore, based on the acquittal by the JMFC, there was no ground to hold that the truck driver was not rash and negligent in this matter. Besides, it is well settled that the standard of proof in a criminal trial and proceedings before the Tribunal is entirely different. Before the Tribunal, the evidence will have to be assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

9. The Tribunal, in this case, has unnecessarily picked holes in the testimony of Assis Dias (AW2). Even Ms. Afonso contended that this witness was a plant. However, there is no good reason to accept this contention. Even the truck driver, after initial denials, admitted that there was a scooter/scooter driver along with the Sumo vehicle that assisted Peter after the accident.

10. In this case, the factum of the accident is not denied. There is evidence about the police machinery lodging an FIR and launching prosecution against the truck driver. Assis has explained the genesis of the accident. The truck driver may have his version but failed to examine the cleaner, who was admittedly in the truck, whose evidence might have been more balanced than the partisan evidence of the truck dr