Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIKAS KUNVAR SRIVASTAV, J.
Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. Through Its Manager - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Chanchala And Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal From Order No.920 of 2010
Decided on : 07-05-2019
For the Appellant : Suresh Panjwani, Adv.
For the Respondent: A.P. Singh, Atul Mishra, adv.
The burden of proof in motor accident claim cases is not as strict as in criminal cases, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be applied. Insurers must prove any breach of policy conditions to avoid liability.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claim - Involvement of Tractor in Accident - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2) - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerns a motor accident claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents seeking compensation for the death of Rakesh in a motorcycle accident involving a tractor. The appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., contested the claim, arguing that the tractor was not involved in the accident and that the relevant objections against the claim petition were not considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was proved by the claimants-respondents with preponderance of probabilities, based on evidence including certified copies of the First Information Report, postmortem report, and witness testimonies. The court also noted that the insurance policy covered the tractor at the time of the accident, and the insurer failed to prove any breach of policy conditions to avoid liability.
Issues: The issues included the occurrence of the accident, validity of the driver's license, insurance coverage, quantum of compensation, and entitlement to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden to prove the accident lies upon the claimant, but this burden is not as strict as in criminal cases. The court emphasized that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be applied in motor accident claim cases. The court also highlighted the insurer's obligation to prove any breach of policy conditions to avoid liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to comply with the judgment and award within 30 days. In case of failure, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was directed to enforce and execute the award against the appellant-Insurance Company.
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.
1. The present First Appeal From Order is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 16.04.2010, passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (P.A.) Act, Hardoi/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 83 of 2008 (Smt. Chanchala and Others Vs. Somendra Singh & Others) awarding a compensation of Rs.4,10,000/-alongwith interest thereon @ 6 % to the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 8 in this appeal.
2. The Motor Accident Claim Petition was filed by claimant-respondents No. 1 to 8, claiming compensation with regard to accident occurred on 02.04.2008, wherein Rakesh, husband of the claimant-respondent no. 1 when riding his motorcycle no. UP 27 J/9406 was dashed by a tractor, coming from back side, bearing No. UP 30B/4672 due to which he fell down on the road and got seriously injured. He was brought to the hospital where he died. Respondents no. 9 & 10 respectively, are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle described herein-above.
3. For the purpose of brevity and convenience, the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. shall, hereinafter be addressed as 'Insurer', claimant-respondents shall be addressed as 'Claimants' and the tractor alleged to have caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving will be addressed as 'offending vehicle' only.
4. The claimants are respectively wife (widow) of the deceased-victim (Rakesh) i.e. Smt. Chanchala and 5 minor children Km. Priya aged about 17 years, Km. Shashi aged about 14 years, Km. Manisha aged about 11 years, Master Amit aged about 7 years and Master Som aged about 3 years respectively at the time of filing of the instant appeal in the year 2010. Alongwith the wife and minor children, the parents of the deceased are also arrayed as claimants no. 7 and 8.
5. The grounds set forth in the memo of appeal assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 16.04.2010 are that the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal ought to have held the offending vehicle, not involved in the alleged accident and it was simply a case of 'hit and run' by some other vehicle. Despite the said fact, the chargesheet filed by the police, though has no force of conclusive evidence for the purpose of adjudication under the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has given undue weightage to the same, even the offending motor vehicle was not seized on the spot. The relevant objections against the claim petition were not considered while the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal recorded its findings in the judgment, despite the fact that the appellant has categorically denied the accident with the tractor. The First Information Report did not state about the registration number of tractor in question and driver but it only states that the offending vehicle was 'Swaraj Tractor' relates to village Anangpur, whereas there are so many tractors in Anangpur and insured with Insurer. Moreover, his tractor is 'escort' tractor. Story of hit and run by a tractor to the motorcycle from the back side is quite improbable. PW-2 is produced as an eye witness of the accident. He also says that some other persons have witnessed the accident but they are not produced as witness. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant 'insurer' has made a prayer to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal exonerating the appellant-insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation in the present case.
6. From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal framed 5 issues. The first issue is relating to the accident alleged to be happened on 02.04.2003 at 05:15 p.m. by the tractor bearing No. UP 30B/4672 due to rash and negligent driving by it's driver who dashed the motorcycle bearing No. UP 27 J/9406 being driven by the victim-Rakesh due to which he had received serious injuries and ultimately
