Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Sunil Kumar S/o Shyamlal - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Shadab S/o Mohd. Taskeen & Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal From Order No. 1115 of 2010
Decided On : 09-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shakeel Ahmad Ansari, Rajendra Jaiswal
For the Respondent: Alok Kumar Srivastava, B.Q. Siddiqui
In motor accident claim cases, the accident is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply.
Headnote:
Motor Accident - Dismissal of Claim Petition - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 134/187, 279, 337, 304A - The court discussed the evidence and material available on record, and set aside the judgment of the lower court, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident. The tribunal dismissed the claim petition, finding that the appellant failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal's dismissal of the claim petition was not sustainable and set aside the judgment, remitting the matter back for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had proved the involvement of the vehicle in the accident to claim compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in motor accident claim cases, the accident is to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the FIR and charge-sheet in such cases.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of the lower court were set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard, Shri Rajendra Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
2. This first appeal from order has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.05.2010 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.180 of 2009 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Mohd. Shadab & Another) by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Unnao by means of which the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts, for disposal of the present appeal, are that on 15.04.2009 the appellant / claimant was going alongwith his brother Shyam Lal for taking medicine to village Nevarna on foot on his left side of road. As he alongwith his father reached at some distance before the Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Nevarna at about 09:30 A.M., the driver of the Scorpio Jeep having Registration No.UP-35-F-7800, driving rashly and negligently, hit the appellant after bringing it on the left side. Consequently, the appellant suffered serious injuries. The right leg of the appellant was broken. The accident was seen by the father of the appellant and Raghuveer S/o Putti Lal R/o village-Nevarna and others and the number of the vehicle was noted down. The appellant was admitted in the District Hospital, Unnao in the injured condition. The appellant remained there for treatment w.e.f. 15.04.2009 to 11.05.2009 and the treatment was going on. The FIR of the accident was lodged by the father of the appellant at Police Station-Achalganj, District-Unnao against the driver. In case the driver of the vehicle would have driven the vehicle cautiously the accident would not have happened. With the aforesaid allegations the claim petition was filed claiming the compensation.
4. The claim petition was contested by the respondent no.1 i.e. the owner of the vehicle denying most of the allegations and also the involvement of his vehicle in the accident. It has been stated in paragraph-24 that at the alleged date and time of accident the accident had not occurred by vehicle No.UP-35-F-7800 because at the time of accident the vehicle was being driven by a competent driver namely Mukesh S/o Santosh Pasi R/o Village-Jamuka, Police Station-Achalganj, District-Unnao with a very slow speed on the left side of the road. Therefore, the question of accident does not arise. The FIR has been lodged with a delay after consultation with the intention to claim the compensation after noting down the number of his vehicle. It has further been stated in the written statement that the vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and in case any liability for payment of compensation is made out the same is to be paid by insurance company. The respondent no.2 i.e Reliance General Insurance Company Limited had also filed its written statement. It has also been stated in written statement that the driver of the vehicle No.UP-35-F-7800 was not negligent. It was further stated in paragraph-11 that the accident was caused by the negligence of the Sunil Kumar as such the answering opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed. On behalf of the appellant-claimant-Sunil Kumar as PW-1 and Shyam Lal Yadav as PW-2 were got examined. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced. On behalf of the appellant the original FIR and the copy of the release order of the vehicle in question issued from the Court, the copy of the Registration Certificate, Beema Policy of the vehicle in question, Medical Report of Sunil Kumar, the Site Plan of the spot of the accident, copy of the X-Ray Report of the appellant, report of the doctor for X-Ray, the Medicines taken by the appellant, Cash Memo and Receipts of the medicines taken by the appellant / claimant were filed. On behalf of the respondent-insurance company copy of the Beema Policy was filed. After hearing learned cou
