Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
Balwan - Appellant
Versus
Surender and ors - Respondents
FAO-204 of 2013
Decided on : 28-11-2023
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 166 - [166] - The court discussed the issue of rash and negligent driving by the respondent, the burden of proof, and the relevance of the judgment in the criminal case. The court upheld the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Balwan, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent. The appellant claimed to have suffered serious injuries and incurred significant medical expenses as a result of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to establish that he sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent. The court noted discrepancies in the appellant's testimony and concluded that he was not a trustworthy witness. The court upheld the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition.
Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, entitlement to compensation, maintainability of the claim petition, locus standi of the petitioner, validity of the insurance policy, liability of the insurance company, and mis joinder of parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the appellant's testimony and the burden of proof in establishing the cause of the accident. The court also considered the relevance of the judgment in the criminal case and the credibility of the witnesses. The court held that the appellant's contradictory statements and conduct undermined his credibility, leading to the dismissal of the claim petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, rejecting the claim petition for compensation.
JUDGMENT :
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. The appellant/claimant – Balwan has filed present appeal against impugned Award dated 03.10.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani vide which the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant Balwan has been dismissed with costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant Balwan filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving Jeep bearing No.HR-19E-0228. It is submitted that at the time of accident he was 28 years of age. He was doing dairy farming and agricultural work. He was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from both the sources. On the fateful day of 18.07.2008 at about 5 pm, he along with his brother Rajender boarded Pickup Jeep No.HR-19E-0228 from the turn of main road village Atela Khurd for going to their village Dohka Hariya. The pickup jeep was driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. He and his brother requested him to drive slowly but he did not listen. When the pickup jeep reached near the village of Atela Khurd, the driver lost control over his vehicle and it turned turtle. The appellant/claimant suffered serious injuries on various parts of his body as he came beneath the pickup jeep. He was taken to Ranvir Hospital, Bhiwani by arranging another vehicle. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Surender. Regarding this accident, FIR No.136, dated 23.07.2008 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at Police Station Badhra. The appellant/claimant was taken to Ranvir Hospital where he was operated upon by Dr. Ranvir on 21.07.2008. He was referred to General Hospital, Bhiwani where he was medico legally examined. Thereafter, he was again admitted in Ranvir Hospital for better treatment where he remained admitted from 18.07.2008 to 21.07.2008. After discharge, he used to visit the Hospital for follow up treatment. On 02.09.2008, he was admitted and operated in SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur and was discharged on 15.09.2008. He suffered a permanent disability. He has spent Rs.3 lacs on his treatment till date and he may require Rs.1.50 lacs for his future medical treatment. The claimant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lacs along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization on account of medical treatment, conveyance charges and other heads as detailed in para No.21 of the claim petition. Hence the claim petition.
3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement taking preliminary objections that no accident took place with pickup jeep bearing No. HR-19E-0228 due to the driving of respondent No.1. He is falsely implicated in this case. A false FIR has been registered. The claim petition has been filed only to extract money illegally and unlawfully. Infact, no accident ever took place. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. Even otherwise the pickup jeep was duly insured vide cover note No.36013933 valid from 05.03.2008 to 04.03.2009. In case any compensation is awarded on account of contributory negligence of the answering respondent, then it is the Insurance Company which is liable to pay the same. Therefore, the claim petition filed against them may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. The Insurance Company filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability to file the claim petition. The appellant/claimant is estopped from filing this petition by his own act and conduct. He has no cause of action or locus-standi to file this case. The Insurance Company further took the objection that insured has violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. The answering respondent did not receive any intimation
The burden of proof in establishing the cause of an accident and the credibility of witnesses are crucial factors in determining claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The court ruled that inconsistent testimonies in criminal and civil proceedings undermine the credibility of the claimant, leading to dismissal of the compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Claimants in motor vehicle accident cases must meet the burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities, and strict evidence rules do not apply, allowing the invocation of the res ipsa loquitur p....
The court clarifies the burden of proof in accident claims, stating that evidence must meet the standard of preponderance of probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
