Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1085
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Jitendra Singh Solanki, - Appellant
Versus
Devichand S/o Shri Lacchiram Agarwall - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 19/2024
Decided On : 04-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Shah
The reliability of witness testimony is crucial; contradictions can lead to dismissal of claims in accident cases.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Act - Sections relevant to the claim petition and burden of proof - The appeal was against the Tribunal's rejection of a claim, primarily based on contradictory statements of an eye-witness, leading to a finding of no negligence by the vehicle's driver. (Paras 1, 3, 7, 25)
(B) Evidence - Reliability of witnesses - The court emphasized that contradictions in witness statements undermine their credibility, thus the Tribunal's reliance on the witness's testimony was misplaced. (Paras 11, 15, 24)
(C) Burden of Proof - The court reiterated that in civil claims, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. (Paras 8, 20)
Facts of the case:
The claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal due to contradictions in the testimony of an eye-witness, who had previously stated he was unaware of the accident's details in a criminal case. (Paras 3, 7)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's conclusion was upheld, finding the evidence insufficient to prove the vehicle's involvement in the accident. (Paras 25)
Issues: The key issue was whether the witness's statements could be relied upon given their contradictory nature. (Paras 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contradictions in the witness's statements rendered him untrustworthy, justifying the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim. (Paras 24)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Act Referred
Order :
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 21.07.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sirohi in MAC Case No.53/2016 (C.I.S No.53/2016) whereby the claim petition as preferred on behalf of the claimants stood rejected.
2. The claim petition was rejected by the learned Tribunal while deciding issue No.1 against the claimants. Issue No.1 read as under:
3. The learned Tribunal, while rejecting the claim petition, recorded a specific finding that the alleged eye-witness Arjun Singh (AW.2) appeared as a witness in the criminal proceedings also (Criminal Case No.408/2015) pertaining to the same accident and the statements of the said witness as recorded by the Criminal Court were got exhibited as Exhibit A-4 in the present petition by the Insurance Company. Before the Criminal Court, the aforesaid witness specifically deposed that he was neither aware how the accident occurred nor had knowledge about the driver or details of the vehicle. Therein, he specifically denied having any information about the said two facts whereas before the learned Tribunal, he deposed that he not only knew the driver of the vehicle but also noted the number of the vehicle before he got unconscious.
4. Arjun Singh (alleged eye witness), in his statement before the learned Tribunal deposed as under:
5. The learned Tribunal therefore concluded that the alleged eye- witness AW-2 Arjun Singh made stark contradictory statements before both the Courts. The learned Tribunal concluded its finding with the following reasoning:
