In accident claim cases the High court while examining the evidence should only analyze the material placed on record. – Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court while adjudicating upon a motor accident claim appeal expressed displeasure over the approach adopted by the High Court in Examination of witnesses. The Supreme Court stated that the role of the High Court was to analyze the material on record and not to find faults in the cross-examination and non-examination of witness. This ratio was laid down in the case of Anita Sharma &amp; Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &amp; Anr., Civil Appeal No. 4010-4011 of 2020. The brief facts of the case are that there was a car accident that took place due to which the Petitioner suffered multiple injuries and after-sometime he died owing to the injuries he suffered in the accident. The dependents of the Petitioner filed a case against the Respondent who was the ‘owner-cum-driver’ of the car in which the accident took place. The Petitioners alleged that it was the rash and negligent driving of the respondent that caused the accident and demanded a compensation of Rs. 60,94,000/-. The Petitioner made the insurance company i.e. New India Assurance Co. as a party to the case, as the Respondent’s car was insured by the said company. The Respondent refuted all the claims and contended that the accident was caused due to the rash driving of the truck. The tribunal analyzed the evidences and material placed on record and on the basis of the eye witness present in the car who stated that, “Sanjeev Kapoor i.e. the Respondent was driving the car at a very fast speed when it overtook a vehicle and collided head-on against the oncoming truck”. Based on the testimony the tribunal allowed the claim and granted a compensation of Rs 16,08,000/-. The Respondents filed an appeal in the Rajasthan High Court. The Rajasthan High Court reviewed the evidence and material in the case and set aside the award made by the Tribunal. The High Court observed that the eye-witness had failed to file an FIR with the jurisdictional police and only came and gave a statement when he was called upon by the Claimants. Secondly, the FIR was registered by the owner-cum-driver of the car and if he was rash and negligent in driving why would he do the same. Thirdly, the assertion of the eye-witness had taken the Petitioner to the government hospital was not proved. The insurance company stated that as per the FIR the accident was caused due to the rash driving of the truck whose details could not be recorded by anyone. The High Court on these grounds set aside the award of the Tribunal.
These two appeals which have been heard through video conferencing are directed against the judgment dated 23.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Co. Ltd. against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s award dated 01.09.2012 was by the appellant­claimants for enhancement of compensation was and two other occupants. Sanjeev Kapoor who was also its owner 11:55PM but was subsequently referred to the Institute of Medical Sciences and S.S. Hospital BHU Varanasi on 26.03.2009 considering the severity and multiplicity of his injuries. Although he was that Sandeep kept experiencing one after another medical complications and remained hospitalized at the Jain Hospital in Jaipur and later the Joshi Nursing Home at Sikar. His injuries income tax assessee with an Employees Provident Fund and the insurer of the car ­ New India Assurance Co. Ltd. were The insurance company in its separate written statement took information report the accident was caused by an unknown truck which hit the car No. UP­65­AA­7100 and therefore the claim petition The factual averments made in the Claim Petition were denied for the eye­witness Ritesh Pandey according to whom Sanjeev Kapoor was driving the car at a very fast speed when it overtook a vehicle and collided head­on against the oncoming truck. The Tribunal thus assigned liability for the accident upon the respondents and partly allowed the Claim Petition with a compensation of Rs. 16 08 000 was registered on the basis of information furnished by one Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal son of Bal Krishan Das Aggarwal a resident of District travelling in the Wagon R Car No. UP­65­AA­7100 along with three which was being driven rashly and at a fast speed struck against the could not be noticed as it was dark. The car was badly damaged other. The informant himself had not witnessed the accident and hand relied upon the contents of the FIR and the ‘Investigation 13. At this juncture we may refer to the statement of Ritesh Pandey business dealings with the deceased or his family. He has deposed overtook him at a very high speed. He has further deposed that a truck coming from the opposite side collided with the car. Various deposed that he took all the four injured persons to the District Medical Sciences and S.S. Hospital BHU Varanasi. 14. Most importantly the only question asked to this witness in examination. While the Tribunal believed Ritesh Pandey and accepted the claim petition in part the High Court for the reasons and not by Ritesh Pandey leave no persons it is quite natural that the police It is commonplace for most people to be hesitant about being the injured to the hospital. The statement of AW­3 therefore acquires significance as according to him he brought the injured in his car to the hospital. Ritesh Pandeyacted as a good samaritan and a the independence and benevolence of AW­3. Without any personal injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid could not have Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the police had themselves reached the hospital upon having received information about the accident there was perhaps no occasion for 18. Unfortunately the approach of the High Court was not sensitive was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh PW 1 to reach the doctor s chamber in order to ensure that an Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the total approach of the High Court unfortunately was not sensitised enough to appreciate the 15. In a situation of this nature the Tribunal has rightly taken a touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof witness or confront him with their version despite adequate They did not even suggest the witness that he was siding with the 20. The importance of cross­examination has been elucidated on “278. Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross­ witness on oath in examination­in­chief the objects of which and the questions to be addressed in the course of cross­ examination are to test his veracity to discover who he is 21. Relying upon Kartar Singhin a MACT case this Court in Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation3 considered the effect of non­examination of the pillion rider as a “30. Clearly the evidence given by Bhagchand withstood the evidence. In turn the High Court has failed to take note of the absence of cross examination of this witness by the respondents leave alone the Tribunal s finding on the same and instead absence from the list is fatal to the case of the appellants. This Court s observation and claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a witness in motor accident claim who has not essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross examine the concerned witness. Once cast on the veracity of the witness the same should have come out in cross examination for which opportunity was 32. The High Court has not held that the respondents were successful in challenging the witnesses version of events despite said witness was cross examined by the respondents but by selectively overlooking the deficiencies in the respondent s case 22. Equally we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non­examination of some best eye­witnesses as may happen in a criminal trial but instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz4 up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable one of the contesting respondents in the Claim Petition who along in the result of the case. If the owner­cum­driver of the car were taken place. The fact that Sanjeev Kapoor chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement further suggests that he was himself at fault. The High Court therefore ought 24. Further little reliance can be placed on the contents of the FIR First the author of the FIR that is Praveen Kumar Aggarwal does not lodged two days after the accident on 27.03.2009. The FIR recites BHU Varanasi for treatment even though as per the medical report this took place only on 26.03.2009 the day after the accident Therefore the belated FIR appears to be an afterthought attempt to the High Court to disbelieve Ritesh Pandey AW­3 on the other hand 25. Adverting to the claimants’ appeal for enhancement of raised on their behalf as to how the compensation assessed by the Tribunal was inadequate except that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi5 the claimants are entitled to an increase of 40 the High Court is set aside and the appellants are held entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal besides 40% addition in the annual income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sikaris directed to re­ held entitled to interest @ 8.5% as per the Tribunal’s award on the entire amount of compensation. The Tribunal shall re­calculate the compensation within one month and the insurance company shall