Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 24217
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI, J
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LEGAL DEPARTMENT – Appellant
Versus
DIPIKABEN WD/O BHARATBHAI BALDEVBHAI RANA – Respondent
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1123 of 2011 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1124 of 2011
The principle of res ipsa loquitur applies in accident claims, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to demonstrate lack of negligence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeals against judgment and award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The Insurance Company appealed against the Tribunal's decision, claiming the driver of the offending vehicle lacked a valid license and asserting the deceased's negligence. (Paras 1, 4, 11)
(B) Negligence - Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur - The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur, indicating that the accident's circumstances suggested negligence on the part of the truck driver, who failed to provide evidence. (Paras 8, 10)
(C) Burden of Proof - The court emphasized that the burden of proof in accident claims is on the defendant to show that the accident did not result from their negligence. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was riding a moped with a pillion rider when a truck collided with them, resulting in their deaths. The claimants sought compensation from the truck driver and the Insurance Company. (Paras 2.1, 2.2)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the truck driver fully negligent and held the Insurance Company liable for compensation. (Paras 10, 12)
Issues: The main issues were whether the truck driver had a valid license and whether the deceased was negligent in the accident. (Paras 4, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Insurance Company failed to prove the truck driver's lack of a valid license and that the principle of res ipsa loquitur applied, indicating the truck driver's negligence. (Paras 8, 10)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claim (Para 2) |
| 2. insurance company's claims (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. claimants' defense (Para 6) |
| 4. evidence and burden of proof (Para 7) |
| 5. application of res ipsa loquitur (Para 8) |
| 6. judgment references (Para 9) |
| 7. adverse inference drawn (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. appeals outcome (Para 12) |
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , is preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surat in MACP No.478 of 2003 and MACP No.586 of 2003.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 On 02.02.2003, deceased Bharatbhai was driving his moped and was going from Surat to Olpad. One Laxmanbhai was sitting behind the seat of said Moped. When they were passing from end of Saroli bridge, at that time, opponent no.1 driving Truck No.GJ-18-T-770 came in full speed and dashed with moped. In the said accident, both Bharatbhai and Laxmanbai sustained serious injured and succumbed to injury. Therefore, claimants filed claim petition claiming compensation from the original opponents.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the Insurance Company and learned advocate Mr.MTM Hakim and learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the claimants respectively.
4. The appeal is limited on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective and valid license on the date of accident.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the Insurance Company submits that since claimant came to know about the fact that driver of the offending vehicle is not having effective and valid license, the claimant has deleted driver from the array of opponents which indicates that driver was not holding valid license on the date of accident.
5.1. Apart from above submission, learned advocate Mr.Mehta submits that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in not considering self negligence of Mr.Bharatbhai who at the relevant time was riding moped. It is further submitted that in view of principle of res ipsa loquiter negligence of the driver of moped can be ascertained as it was head on collusion accident but the learned Tribunal did not ascertain this aspect and committed serious error.
6. On the other hand learned advocates for the claimants submitted that since driver is formal party, learned Tribunal has passed order to delete him. It is further submitted that said order is not challenged by the Insurance Company before higher forum. In view of that, now contention cannot be raised for the first time in this appeal. They would submit that no evidence has been led by Insurance Company to show and prove that deceased was negligent in causing road accident and at the same time, driver of the truck was not holding effective license.
Therefore, they submit to dismiss the appeals.
7. At the outset, it could be noticed that truck driver has not been examined by the Insurance Company. Truck driver even did not enter his appearance to contest claim petition by filing written statement to counter allegations levelled against him. Best evidence of the road accident is kept hidden from the learned Tribunal. Insurance Company did not lead evidence of driver of the offending vehicle to prove actual facts of road accident before the learned Tribunal.
8. Departing from normal rule of burden of proof and adopting principle of res ipsa loquitur to be applicable to the case filed under Motor Vehicle Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company Pvt. Ltd. [1977 (2) SCC 745] , held and observed as under :-
"The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who. caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it ha
