In motor accident claims, the standard of proof required is much lower than in criminal or civil cases, and the claimant must establish negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

1. Present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated 11.07.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.9,26,415/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum in favour of the respondents/claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 19.02.1996 till realization of the amount.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company only on the ground that the negligence has not been proved by the claimant, despite, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the claimant had not examined any eye witness to prove negligence on the part of respondent No.3, i.e., driver of the offending vehicle. Although FIR No.603/95 was registered against the said respondent No.3 at P.S. Singhani Gate, Ghaziabad and thereafter a chargesheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), however, the learned Judicial Magistrate vide judgment dated 30.07.2003 acquitted the respondent No.3 on the ground that the eye witness had not seen the driver causing the accident.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) and not under Section 163-A MV Act. In a claim petition filed under Section 166 MV Act, it was the bounden duty of the claimant to prove that the respondent No.3 was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle at the time of accident, whereas, in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A MV Act, the accident is to be proved, however, negligence of the driver is not required to be proved.

5. He submitted that in the present case also, negligence on the part of the respondent No.3 had not been proved despite that the learned Tribunal held respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle, responsible for the accident and directed the appellant/Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay the compensation amount.

6. To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel has relied upon a case decided by the Full Bench of the Supreme Court titled as ‘Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr., (1977) 2 SCC 441, wherein it has been observed that merely a party received an injury arising out of the use of a vehicle in a public place cannot be the reason for fastening liability on the owner. The proof of negligence remains the linchpin to recover compensation. The concept of owner’s liability without any negligence is opposed to the basic principles of law.

7. Thereafter, the law settled by the Apex Court in the above noted case was relied upon by the Division Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. (2007) 5 SCC 428.

8. While concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that in the present case negligence has not been proved, therefore, the impugned order dated 11.07.2006 be set aside or in the alternative case be remanded back to the learned Tribunal to be decided afresh under Section 163-A of MV Act.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1/claimant has submitted that on 18.08.1995 at about 12.45 pm, when Dr. Asha Gupta was going to her residence from her dispensary towards Tri Junction, Ghaziabad, she was hit by a bus bearing No.PAB 3325, being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, i.e., respondent No.3, who brought the bus on the extreme edge of the road and struck against Dr.Asha Gupta. On account of forceful impact from behind, she was thrown on the road and her head was crushed under the front wheel of the bus, due to which she died at the spot.

10. It is important to note that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e, owner and driver of the offending vehicle, were proceeded ex parte