Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

A.O. No.442 of 2024

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Neeraj Uprety, Advocate for the

appellants.

Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate for

the respondent nos.1 & 2.

Mr. Naresh Pant and Mr. Raunak Pant,

Advocate for respondent no.3.

2. The brief facts, as disclosed, are that on 17.08.2023, one Mahindra KUV Car bearing Registration No. UK05-TA-2961 was hired by the deceased Naveen Kumar to travel to Jakhpant for an urgent work. While returning to Vada at about 3:00 p.m. near Rikhtal, the vehicle being driven by Deepak Kumar met with an accident and fell into a deep gorge. As a result, Naveen Kumar died on the spot, and the driver was thrown out of the vehicle. Claimants alleged that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The deceased, aged 35 years, was a healthy young man engaged in agriculture, horticulture, and transport activities, earning around ₹30,000 per month and his mother and two minor children were wholly dependent on him. The claimants sought compensation of ₹72,70,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till payment. The learned Tribunal, after considering the Detailed Accident Report submitted by the Police, dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that no eyewitness was produced to establish rash

and negligent driving.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the finding returned by learned Tribunal is contrary to law and facts on record. It was pointed out that P.W.2 Kamlesh Giri had clearly deposed as an

eyewitness that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Deepak Kumar and his testimony was not challenged by the Insurance Company in cross-examination, therefore, his statement remained uncontroverted. It is further argued that in the Detailed Accident Report, the Investigating Officer recorded the confession of the driver that he lost control of the vehicle as a wild animal suddenly crossed the road. This, according to learned counsel, itself proves negligence. It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to properly evaluate this evidence while deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 3.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that negligence was not satisfactorily proved.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W.2, which clearly supported the claimants’ version. The driver’s own admission that he lost control of the vehicle while trying to avoid a wild animal further demonstrates lack of reasonable care and caution. The law is well settled that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is one of preponderance of probabilities and the claim cannot fail merely because there is no independent eyewitness, if the surrounding circumstances establish negligence.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530, has held that even in the absence of an eyewitness, negligence can be inferred from the nature of the accident and attending facts.

7. Similarly, in the case of Minu B. Mehta