2020 Supreme(SC) 704

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Anita Sharma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4010-4011 of 2020, Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 32011-32012 of 2018
Decided On : 08-12-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases.
(2) It is commonplace for most people to be hesitant about being involved in legal proceedings and they do not volunteer to become witnesses.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in vehicular accident – Rejection of claim petition by High Court – Owner-cum-driver though denied responsibility of accident through his written statement but chose not to enter witness box in his defence – Insurance company relied upon contents of FIR and Investigation Report to aver that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver alone – Accident witness has candidly admitted that he could not see registration number of truck – It is commonplace for most people to be hesitant about being involved in legal proceedings and they do not volunteer to become witnesses – There is nothing on record to suggest that Police reached site of accident or carried injured to hospital – It is quite natural that such a person who had accompanied injured to hospital for immediate medical aid, could not have simultaneously gone to police station to lodge FIR – High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against witness for his failure to report the matter to Police – Approach of High Court was not sensitive enough to appreciate turn of events at the spot, or appellant-claimants’ hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident which took place many hundreds of kilometres away in an altogether different State – Failure of respondents to cross examine solitary eyewitness or confront him with their version, despite adequate opportunity, must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part – They did not even suggest witness that he was siding with claimants – High Court has failed to appreciate legal effect of absence of cross-examination of a crucial witness. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Death in vehicular accident – Rejection of claim petition by High Court – Strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases – Standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt – Approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze material placed on record by parties to ascertain whether claimant’s version is more likely than not true – If owner-cum-driver of car were setting up a defence plea that accident was a result of not his but truck driver’s carelessness or rashness, then onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how accident had taken place – Fact that he chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault – High Court ought not to have shifted burden of proof – Judgment under appeal of High Court set aside and appellants held entitled to compensation of compensation of Rs. 16,08,000/- as awarded by Tribunal, besides 40% addition in annual income of deceased towards future prospects – Appellants held entitled to interest @ 8.5%, as per Tribunal’s award on entire amount of compensation. (Paras 22 to 26)

Facts of the Case:

At the time of death, deceased was aged 34 years and was an income tax assessee with an Employees Provident Fund (EPF) account. He was employed in Mumbai as a Sales Officer on regular basis. He left behind a widow, two minor children and a mother; all of whom were dependent on him. Present appeal are directed against the judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur whereby the first appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award dated 01.09.2012 was allowed and the Claim Petition was rejected, whereas appeal filed by appellant-claimants for enhancement of compensation was consequently dismissed.

Findings of Court:

Observation of the High Court that author of the FIR (as per its judgment, owner-cum-driver) had not been examined as a witness, and hence adverse inference ought to be drawn against appellant-claimants, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Not only is the owner-cum-driver not the author of the FIR, but instead he is one of the contesting respondents in the Claim Petition who, along with insurance company, is an interested party with a pecuniary stake in the result of the case.

Result : Appeal allowed.