Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3232
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Satyendra Singh Chauhan, Vijay Laxmi, JJ.
Ram Devi and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Virendra Kumar Shukla and Another - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 290 of 2014
Decided On : 06-05-2016
For the Appellant :- Anoop Kumar,Ashok Kumar
For the Respondent:- Ajeet Srivastav,Uma Kant Dixit
The court emphasized the quasi-judicial nature of the tribunal's functions under the Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof required for establishing a claim under the Act, and the principles for deciding claim petitions.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Compensation - Motor Vehicle Act, Section 168, Section 166, Section 140, Section 304A, Section 340 I.P.C. - The court discussed the quasi-judicial nature of the functions of the tribunal under the Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof required for establishing a claim under the Act, and the principles for deciding claim petitions. It emphasized that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to civil suits and strict rules of evidence do not apply. The court also highlighted the requirement to establish a case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the need for a holistic view while dealing with claim petitions under the Act. Additionally, it emphasized that the term rashness and negligence should be construed lightly in the context of motor accident claims, and that the rules of pleadings do not strictly apply to motor accident claim cases.
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition was filed by the appellants, including the father of the deceased, who died in a motor accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the evidence and grounds raised by the claimants, and did not appreciate the evidence in light of the settled legal principles applicable to proceedings under the Motor Vehicle Act. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the tribunal for a fresh decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the rejection of the claim petition by the tribunal, and the need for a fair opportunity for both parties to present their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the quasi-judicial nature of the tribunal's functions under the Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof required for establishing a claim under the Act, and the principles for deciding claim petitions. It also highlighted the requirement to establish a case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the need for a holistic view while dealing with claim petitions under the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, the impugned judgment and award were set aside, and the case was remanded to the tribunal for a fresh decision.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.10.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi in MACP No.223 of 2012 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved against this award, the present appeal was preferred by the appellants to set aside the impugned award and to award compensation in their favour to the tune of Rs.48,00,000/-.
3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under: -
That one Bhagwandeen died in motor accident who was going with Krishna Pal, his jija, from his village to Sandi on 03.07.2012 at about 1.00 pm. on foot, when he was hit by a dala No. UP 30A 9319 from the back and suffered fatal injuries. Bhagwandeen succumbed to injuries. The claim petition was filed by the appellants including father of the deceased, who expired after the passing of the impugned ward. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order contended that the Tribunal without adverting to all the factual details and terms raised in the claim petition, disposed of the petition in a cryptic manner. According to the learned counsel the death of the Bhagwandeen was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of dala No. UP 30A 9319 on the date and time of the accident. The appellants/claimants adduced cogent evidence and as such the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition. The procedure of deciding the claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are the different from that of the investigation of the incident by the police and the Criminal Trial. The Tribunal had acted illegally in holding that the accident was not caused by the vehicle in question. No case under Section 340 I.P.C. was made out and the Tribunal had acted illegally in directing to register the case.
5. It is further submitted that the Tribunal disbelieved the witnesses of the claimants and wrongly observed that the dala in question was not involved in the accident. The alleged final report was made one of the basis for rejecting the claim petition which cannot be made the basis of dismissal of claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed reliance of Shiv Murti Singh versus Nawab Khan reported in 2014 (32) 1553 wherein it was observed by Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) that the final report filed by the police in criminal case could not have been made basis for rejecting the claim as the claim is to be decided on its own merits and evidence on record taking into account the Rule of Preponderance of Probability.
6. According to the appellants, Krishan Pal Pw3 was an eye witness to the accident in question. The carbon copy of the FIR, the post mortem report were relevant documents and there was sufficient proof on record before the tribunal. Therefore, reading all the evidence, oral and documentary filed by the petitioner as a whole, it stands proved on record that deceased had sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle. The award was against the material on record and against the law and was liable to be set aside.
7. As against it, the owner of the offending vehicle, the respondent no.1 denied the accident alleging that the accident was caused by some other vehicle and the respondent was falsely implicated in this case due to election politics. Dala of respondent was not involved in the case and there was no negligence on their part in causing the accident in question. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, supported the impugned order and urged that it does not call for any interference.
8. However, before making any analytical discussion about the rejection of the claim petition by the tribunal, it would be appropriate to mention the settled l
