Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2268
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, J
Smt. Shobha Singh – Appellant
Versus
Avdesh Pratap Singh – Respondent
MA 2252/2024
Prashant Singh Baghel,
In motor accident claims, claimants must prove involvement of the vehicle on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149 and 166 - Appeal against award for compensation in motor accident case - Claimants contended dismissal of claim was erroneous as evidence was disregarded - Tribunal's finding on liability reversed, establishing that the death of Kamlesh Pratap Singh was due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle - The claimants are only required to prove their case on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 10, 16)
(B) Burden of Proof - In motor accident claims, the burden lies on the claimants to establish the involvement of the vehicle in the accident on a preponderance of probability, and not beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 21, 23)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a motor accident where Kamlesh Pratap Singh was killed when his scooty was hit by a car driven negligently. The claimants argued that the tribunal dismissed their claim despite reliable evidence supporting their case. (Paras 1, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the claimants established the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, reversing the tribunal's dismissal of the claim. The compensation amount awarded by the tribunal was confirmed. (Paras 16)
Issues: The main issues included whether the death of Kamlesh Pratap Singh was caused by the negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the adequacy of the evidence presented by the claimants. (Paras 9, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the claimants had sufficiently established their case based on the preponderance of probability, and the tribunal's dismissal of the claim was erroneous. The court emphasized that the burden of proof in such cases is not as stringent as beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 21, 23)
Result: Appeal allowed to the extent indicated above.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellants- claimants against the award dated 5.2.2024 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 57 of 2023 by Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagod, District Satna, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.21,44,972/- for the death of Kamlesh Pratap Singh.
2. The ground of appeal is that the claim has been wrongly dismissed. The claimants have produced all reliable evidence. Vinit Singh, the applicant witness no.2 has supported the case of the claimant and simply on the ground that Vinit Singh and claimants are known to each other, the case cannot be dismissed. The claim can also not be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and if the statement of Vinit Singh has been recorded belatedly by the Police, it is not fault of the claimants.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim of the appellants has been dismissed without relying on the evidence available on record. Shri Baghel, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on the judgment of Geeta Dubey and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others passed by Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.8551 of 2024 vide th judgment dated 18 December 2024 and in the case of Oriental Insurance th Co. Ltd. Vs. Mus Anita Tiwari and others vide order dated 20 February 2023 passed by this High Court in M.A. No.6569 of 2019.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award.
5. As per claimants on 4.12.2022 the husband of the appellant no. 1 Kamlesh Pratap Singh was going on a Scooty No. MP19NE6257 at about 9:00 PM in the night and as soon as he reached near the Singhpur crossing, the non-applicant no. 1 drove the S-cross Car No.MP19CB9808 rashly and negligently coming from Pahadikhera side and dashed against the Scooty. Kamlesh Pratap Singh fell down on the spot. The people present there immediately took him to the Community Health Centre, Nagod by 108 Ambulance where during the preliminary treatment he died.
6. It is submitted that on 5.12.2022 the accident was reported to the Police Station, Singhpur which registered the offence as Crime No.0393 of 2022 under Section 279, 304-A of IPC. The offending car was seized and released on Supurutnama for which criminal trial is pending regarding the same accident.
7. The non-applicant no. 1 and 2 chose not to file their Written Statement.
8. The non- applicant no. 3 submitted that the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the Insurance Police without valid driving licence and other documents like fitness certificate and permit etc.
9. Learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and on Issue No. 1 i.e.“whether in the accident the death of Kamlesh Pratap Singh occurred”, learned tribunal gave a finding that it is not proved that offending vehicle was being driven in contravention of Insurance Police or not.
10. It is seen that charge sheet, dated 3.2.2023, (Ex.P-1) has been filed against the accused Awadhesh Pratap Singh, son of Shri Koushlendra Pratap Singh. The FIR (Ex.P-2), has been lodged on 5.12.2022. In the FIR, reported has been lodged against an unknown vehicle causing the accident by hitting the scooty of deceased Kamlesh Pratap Singh. Later informant, Shri Akhilendra Singh Baghel alongwith brother Shri Rajneesh Kumar Singh came to the Police Station, Nagod and lodged an oral report that on 4.12.2022 at about 9.30 PM at night their Uncle Kamlesh Pratap Singh was going to his house on a Scooty No. MP19NE6257. In the meantime, un unknown vehicle coming from Pahadikheda dashed against him driving it rashly and negligently.
11. The statement of Vinit Singh (Ex.P-14) dated 4.10.2023 has been recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in which he has stated that he has seen the accident caused by driver of S-cross Car No.MP19CB9808 hitting Scooty No. MP19NE6257 driven by the deceased – Kamlesh Pratap Singh.
12. Another statement (Ex.P-14), dated 4.10.2023 is of eye-witness is Shri Veer Vikram Singh, who has made the same state
