Motor Vehicles Act not governed by Code of Civil Procedure or Indian Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court
While deciding an appeal against the order of recovery of damages by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the court decided the evidence will be evaluated on principle of preponderance of probability and that under the said act the tribunal can evolve its own procedure. This Judgment was passed in the case of Sahil Kumar vs. HRTC and Another [FAO No. 349/2019] by a Single Bench Consisting of Hon’ble Justice Vivek Singh Thakur.  The said appeal was against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), where the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed. The claim was with respect to recovery of damages caused to his scooty, when it hit on a debris of a wall because of being hit by a bus of Respondent no.2 while reversing it.  The appellant claims that while respondent no.2 was parking the bus towards the petrol pump; the bus hit the wall and causing an impact on the scooty. The appellant’s house was adjacent to the bus stand and was separated by a brick wall. Before filing a complaint the parties had entered into a compromise deed and thus the same was reduced to writing which was signed by respondent no.2, appellant, and witnesses. Respondent no.1 on the other hand denies the incident and the compromise. While one of the witnesses admitted to signing the compromise deed and confirmation of signature of respondent no.2 and appellant the other witness and respondent no.2 failed to do the same. Respondent no. 2 however admitted to being present at the time of the incident and on duty. The High Court observed, As held in the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Courts, the Motor Vehicles Act is not governed by any rules or procedure envisaged by CPC and Evidence Act, the tribunal is empowered to evolve its own procedure. The High Court held that the evidence under the present legislation should be evaluated on the principle of preponderance of probability. The High Court after relying on the various judgments of the Supreme court observed that when no objections are raised with regards to the admissibility of documents, it shall be deemed to have been duly proved and after documents are marked as exhibits there can be no objection with regards to their admissibility. The High court held that there is sufficient evidence for the occurrence of the event, however, there isn’t any to quantify the damages.
 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 14 05 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 3419 Judgment Reserved on 22 nd April 2021 Date of Decision 13 th May 2021________________________________________________________Sahil Kumar…AppellantVersusHRTC and another ….RespondentsCoramThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur J. Whether approved for reporting 1 Yes______________________________________________________________For the Appellant: Mr. P.M. Negi Advocate throughVideo Conferencing.For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput Advocate forrespondent No.1 through VideoConferencing.Mr. Arun Raj Advocate forrespondent No.2 through VideoConferencing.__________________________________________________________________Vivek Singh Thakur J. In this appeal challenge has been laid to awardpassed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunalin MAC Petition No. 1017 titled as Sahil Kumar vs.Himachal Road Transport Corporationand another1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes Hig h C o urt of H.P on 14 05 HCHP 2whereby claim petition preferred by appellant has beendismissed.2 Appellant had preferred the claim petition forrecovery of damages caused to his scooty by debris of wall which collapsed with hit of bus being driven by respondent No.2on 30.3.2017 at Bus Stand Hamirpur when it dashed with wallwhile respondent No.2 was reversing it.3 It is the case of appellant that Bus Stand Hamirpur isadjacent to his house and is separated by brick wall over aretaining wall and on 30.3.2017 at about 8 AM his scooty wasparked in his courtyard adjacent to retaining wall whereuponbrick wall of Bus Stand was existing and at that time whenrespondent No. 2 was parking his bus towards petrol pump ofHRTC located at Bus Stand Hamirpur the bus had hit the walland with its impact wall collapsed and debris had fallen onscooty of appellant. 4 According to appellant incident was informed toPolice Post Hamirpur and Insurance Company. However respondent No.2 in the Police Post situated at Bus StandHamirpur had entered into a compromise and therefore reportwith police was not recorded formally rather a compromise deedwas reduced into writing as Ext.PW1 A which was signed byrespondent No.2 and appellant and also by witnesses. Hig h C o urt of H.P on 14 05 HCHP 35 Defence of respondents is denial simplicitor. Theoccurrence as well as causing of damage to scooty andcompromise in the matter by respondent No.2 vide writingExt.PW1 A have been denied.6 Appellant including himself has examined fourwitnesses whereas respondent No.2 has examined himself as adefence witness. 7 The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in NationalInsurance Co. Ltd. vs. Syeda Najmunnissa and others reported in 2011 ACJ 1222 referring judgment of Punjab andHaryana High Court in case United India Assurance CompanyLtd. vs. Kamla Rani reported in 1997 ACJ 1081hasreiterated that Motor Vehicles Act is not governed by Rules orprocedure envisaged by the Civil Procedure Code and EvidenceAct and Tribunal is entitled to evolve its own procedure to meetthe ends of justice based on principles of justice equity and goodconscience.8 The Punjab and Haryana High Court in anotherpronouncement in case Sona and others vs. HaryanaRoadways reported in 1996 ACJ 421 has observed that MotorVehicles Act is legislation which was enacted for the benefit ofclaimants and therefore the rule of strict compliance of Hig h C o urt of H.P on 14 05 HCHP 4provisions of Civil Procedure Code is not to be applied to theaccident cases. 9. It is settled legal position that strict principles of CivilProcedure Code and Evidence Act are not applicable to theenquiries to be made in the claim petition. It is also settled thatin claim case evidence is to be evaluated on the basis ofprinciple of preponderance of probability.10 Appellant in his examination in chief has reiteratedthe incident and has stated that he intended to lodge report inPolice Chowki but respondent No.2 had entered into thecompromise by stating that he would indemnify the loss causedto the scooty whereupon compromise deed Ext.PW1 A wasreduced into writing which apart from him was signed byrespondent No.2 Ashok Kumar and witnesses Surender Kumar Varun Kumar and Nilaksh Chopra. He has further stated that hegot his scooty repaired from agency. To substantiate his claim hehad produced the bill Ext.PW1 B on record to prove theexpenditure incurred by him for repairing his scooty from theAgency. He has further stated that on refusal of Ashok Kumar tomake the payment as agreed he was constrained to file claimpetition.11 PW2 Varun Kumar whose signatures are onagreement and compromise deed Ext.PW1 A which he has Hig h C o urt of H.P on 14 05 HCHP 5admitted has stated that he did not remember where thecompromise was reduced in writing and he has refused toidentify the signatures of respondent No.2 on compromise deed.In his cross examination he has stated that agreement wasalready prepared before his arrival and he was only asked to puthis signatures thereon. According to him he had put hissignatures in Police Chowki. He is friend of the appellant but hehas deposed in most natural manner and without making anyattempt to help the appellant out of the way he has narrated thefacts and circumstances in which he had put signatures on thecompromise.12 PW3 Nilaksh another witness to the agreement hasidentified his signatures in red encircle ‘C’ and has also identifiedthe signatures of appellant Sahil respondent No.2 Ashok Kumarand he has reiterated that respondent No.2 had admitted hisguilt and had agreed to indemnify the appellant. He has alsostated that agreement was reduced into writing in Lady PoliceChowki located on the Bus Stand but no Lady Constable hadsigned thereon. According to him he had arrived on spot afterhearing the sound of collapse of wall. 13 Respondent No.2 appearing as RW1 has refuted thecompromise arrived at between him and appellant and has alsonot admitted his signatures on Ext.PW1 A. However in Hig h C o urt of H.P on 14 05 HCHP 6examination in chief as well as in cross examination he hasadmitted that on 30.3.2017 he was on duty on Bus No. HP 67 1840 which was parked at Bus Stand Hamirpur and he waspresent at Bus Stand on duty at 8 AM. He has also admitted thatmobile number mentioned on agreement below his namebelonged to him. Though he has denied his signatures onagreement however it is evident on comparison with naked eyethat signatures put on compromise and signatures put byrespondent No.2 in his statement recorded in the Court whileappearing as RW1 are having identical strokes leading to clearinference that both signatures have been put by one and thesame person.14 It is also noticeable that at the time of production ofcompromise on record and exhibiting it as Ext.PW1 A noobjection with respect to its admissibility or mode of proof wasever taken. Denial of execution of a document is one thing whereas objection with respect to admissibility or mode of proofis another thing. Even where execution of a document has beendenied a party has a right to raise objection with respect toadmissibility as well as mode of proof at the time of itsproduction and exhibition. Undoubtedly even if a document isadmitted in evidence and its mode of proof has not beenquestioned then also it does not mean that contents thereof Hig h C o urt of H.P on 14 05 HCHP 7have been proved to be genuine. Admissibility of a document inevidence and correctness and or genuineness of contents thereofare two separate things. Even after admitting a document inevidence its genuineness as well as relevance can bedetermined either way on the basis of material on record.15 As held by the Supreme Court in P.C.Purushothama Reddiar vs. S. Perumal reported in AIR1972 SC 608 that when no objection is raised regarding theadmissibility of documents the documents shall be deemed tohave been duly proved in accordance with law and can be read inevidence. This principle has again been reiterated by theSupreme Court in P.C. Thomas vs. P.M. Ismail and others reported in AIR 2010 SC 905 observing that once a documenthas been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit theobjection that it should not have been admitted in evidence orthat mode adopted for proving the documents is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent tomarking of document as exhibit. This principle has also beenfollowed by Division Bench of this High Court in OrientalInsurance Company Ltd. vs. Gian Chand and others reported in III(2002) ACC 168(ms) Judge 