Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1417
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Satveer Singh - Appellant
Versus
United India Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 205 of 2019, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5462 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ram Singh Rathore
For the Respondent: V.P. Mathur
The court affirmed that in claims matters, proof is based on preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, and enhanced compensation based on consensus.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 133 - Involvement of vehicle in accident - The court upheld the Claims Tribunal's finding of vehicle involvement despite the Insurance Company's claims of lack of evidence, emphasizing that proof in claims matters is based on preponderance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 12, 15, 17)
(B) Compensation - The court enhanced the compensation amount by Rs.80,000/- based on consensus between parties, with interest at 9% per annum if not paid within six weeks. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a common judgment regarding a fatal accident involving a motorcycle and a truck, with disputes over vehicle involvement and compensation amount.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence of vehicle involvement and agreed to enhance the compensation amount.
Issues: The main issues were the vehicle's involvement in the accident and the adequacy of the compensation awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented met the standard of preponderance of probability, justifying the Tribunal's findings.
Result: Appeals disposed of; compensation enhanced.
JUDGMENT :
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
1. Since, both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short "the claims Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.184/2017 (205/2014), hence, same are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5462/2018 has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company with the challenge to the award, whereby liability of paying compensation has been imposed upon the Insurance Company.
3. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.205/2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancing of the compensation amount.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company (in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 546/2018) submits that the findings of the learned Tribunal as regards the involvement of the vehicle insured by the Insurance Company are contrary to the facts and evidence on record. Counsel submits that the alleged accident is said to have taken place on 26.03.2014 at about 08:15 PM and there was a Roznamcha report at Chandwaji Police Station at 11:00 PM, wherein the number of the vehicles have not been mentioned as regards its involvement in the alleged accident.
5. Counsel also submits that the evidence of the Investigation Officer verifies the fact of recording the Roznamcha and the aforesaid evidence clearly speaks that the vehicle RJ23-GA-7686 was not involved in the alleged accident. However, the Claims Tribunal has committed an error in holding the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle in the alleged accident without there being any substantial evidence.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimants submits that there is ample evidence on record which clearly speaks that the vehicle RJ23-GA-7686 is the only vehicle which hit deceased-Satveer Singh resulting into his death. He also submits that evidence of the material witnesses proves the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the record.
8. The learned Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as regards the involvement of the vehicle and so also the issue of rash and negligent driving.
9. Smt. Rekha- A.W.-1, who is the wife of the deceased-Satveer Singh in her testimony has stated that while her husband was going on motor cycle, the truck bearing registration No. RJ23-GA-7686, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit from the back side and he sustained injuries which resulted into his death. In her statement, she has stated that initially the report was lodged against the unknown vehicle as none of the family members before lodging the report went to the spot, however, on making inquiry after lodging the report, the number of vehicles were given out to the police and the police after making a thorough investigation submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle in question. Though, the said witness is not an eye witness of the accident, however, the evidence of this witness cannot be discarded out rightly as she after having an inquiry stated the vehicle number.
10. A.W.-2 Raj Kumar alias Omprakash in his statements has stated that at the time of alleged accident, he and one Kailash Singh were taking food on a hotel close to place of accident and they saw the vehicle in question which hit the motor cycle from the back side on which the deceased was riding which resulted into his death. The said witness has also given the details of the vehicle in question at the relevant time and he has also stated that he has informed the official of the Police Station on telephone regarding the accident. The Insurance Company has also produced Trilokinath, who was examined as NAW-1, who is not the eye witness and he is only the investigator of the Insurance Company. In his investigation report, he gave conclusion that the vehicle said to be involved in accident has been arranged by the claimants later on.
11. On perusal of the complete investigation report, the Court
