Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 438 (UTT)

Geeta v. Surendra Nath Chauhan

2023-08-01

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

body2023
JUDGMENT : This is claimants’ Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Appellants have challenged the judgment & order dated 26.04.2012 passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby the Claim Petition filed by them, under Section 166 of the aforesaid Act, was dismissed. 2. The Claim Petition was filed by wife and two minor daughters of Prem Nath @ Prem Chand, who died in a road accident. It was stated that Prem Nath @ Prem Chand, while returning home with one Mr. Vinay @ Bhutul on a scooter, was hit by a truck, bearing registration no.HR-38-F-2163, on Nainital road near Britannia Factory, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Pant Nagar on 24.10.2005 at about 08:30 p.m. and, due to the impact of collusion, both persons sustained grievous injuries; Vinay @ Bhutal was taken to nearby Government Hospital, where doctors declared him brought dead; while, Prem Nath @ Prem Chand was taken to Sai Hospital, Moradabad for treatment however, during treatment, he succumbed to his injuries, on 27.10.2005. It was further stated in the Claim Petition that the accident was witnessed by Upendra & Babloo, who later gave information regarding the registration number of the offending truck to the family members, and the said information was passed on to the Police Station Pant Nagar on 27.10.2005; although, F.I.R. was registered on 25.10.2005. The Claim Petition was initially filed only against owner of Truck No. HR-38F-2163; besides, mother and father of the deceased Prem Nath @ Prem Chand. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. was permitted to be impleaded as respondent to the Claim Petition vide order dated 15.12.2007 and, by a subsequent order dated 14.05.2008, Driver of the truck was also permitted to be impleaded as respondent. 3. The owner of Truck No. HR-38F-2163 vaguely denied the factum of accident and stated that Driver of the truck was not negligent and further that the Driver never informed about the accident to owner of the truck. The insurer of the truck took usual defense in its written statement and did not specifically deny the factum of accident. 4. The Driver of Truck No. HR-38F-2163 admitted that the scooter, on which the deceased was riding, collided with his truck, while he was going from Rudrapur to Haldwani at about 08:30 p.m., on 24.10.2005. The insurer of the truck took usual defense in its written statement and did not specifically deny the factum of accident. 4. The Driver of Truck No. HR-38F-2163 admitted that the scooter, on which the deceased was riding, collided with his truck, while he was going from Rudrapur to Haldwani at about 08:30 p.m., on 24.10.2005. However, the Driver stated that he was carefully driving the truck and it was the Driver of the scooter, who was responsible for head on collision between the scooter and the truck. 5. Based on the pleadings made by parties, 3 points for determination were framed by learned Tribunal: (i) Whether on 24.10.2005 at about 8:30 p.m. the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Truck No. HR-38F-2163, which resulted in death of Premnath @ Premchand? If yes, then its effect? (ii) Whether the Driver of the truck was having valid and effective driving license on the date of accident? If yes, then its effect” (iii) Whether claimant’s are entitled to any compensation, If yes, then what amount and from which respondent? 6. Upendra, who allegedly witnessed the road accident, was examined as P.W.-2; while, Geeta Devi (widow of Prem Nath) was examined as P.W.-1. No witness was produced on behalf of the respondents. Learned Tribunal rejected the Claim Petition by holding that Truck No. HR-38F-2163 was not involved in the said accident and the claimants have setup a false case in collusion with the Driver of the truck. One of the reasons given for returning such finding is that since Upendra (P.W.-2), in his testimony, had stated that there was no light at the site of accident, therefore, he could not have seen the registration number of the offending truck. Another reason for disbelieving the factum of accident is that the registration number of the truck was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer had submitted Final/Closure Report, as the offending truck could not be identified. The third reason assigned for disbelieving the factum of accident is that if any accident had occurred, then the Driver of the truck must have informed its owner and the owner had stated in his written statement that no information regarding accident was given to him. 7. The third reason assigned for disbelieving the factum of accident is that if any accident had occurred, then the Driver of the truck must have informed its owner and the owner had stated in his written statement that no information regarding accident was given to him. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the testimony of Upendra, who was present at the site of accident and took the injured persons to Hospital. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred on a busy Delhi-Haldwani National Highway, next to Britannia factory and there are several other factories in the said area. He has drawn attention of this Court to the statement made by Upendra that he had seen registration number of the offending truck in its back light which, however, was ignored by learned Tribunal. He further submits that number plate of every motor vehicle is illuminated with backlight, which can be seen even when there is no external source of light. He further submits that, in a busy National Highway, the headlight of the on-coming vehicles also illuminates the number plate of any vehicle, therefore, the inference drawn by learned Tribunal for disbelieving testimony of P.W.-2, is unsustainable. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Upendra (P.W.-2) had taken the other injured (Vinay @ Bhutal) for treatment to Moradabad and, after returning from Moradabad, he informed the claimants about the registration number of the truck on 27.10.2005 and the information regarding number of the truck was given to the Police Station Pant Nagar the same day. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 8. This Court finds substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. Reasoning given by learned Tribunal for disbelieving the testimony of P.W.-2 is unsustainable. Learned Tribunal has applied strict principles of evidence and standards of proof, which are applicable in a criminal trial. Law is well settled that in Motor Accident Claims cases, the standard of proof to be applied is that of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Sharma and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2021) 1 SCC 171 , has held as under:- “17. Law is well settled that in Motor Accident Claims cases, the standard of proof to be applied is that of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Sharma and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2021) 1 SCC 171 , has held as under:- “17. Unfortunately, the approach of the High Court was not sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot, or the 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. Close to the facts of the case in hand, this Court in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand , viewed that : (SCC p. 638, para 12) “12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed [Amir Chand v. Parmeshwari, 2009 SCC OnLine P&H 9302] the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh, PW 1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen, Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence of Umed 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 plight of the victim. *** ‘15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.’” (emphasis supplied) 21. 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 preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. 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 preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the 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 analyse the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true. 12. In the case of Kusum Lata and others Vs. Satbir and others, (2011) 3 SCC 646 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “8. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have refused to accept the presence of Dheeraj Kumar as his name was not disclosed in the FIR by the brother of the victim. This Court is unable to appreciate the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal and the High Court. This Court is of the opinion that when a person is seeing that his brother, being knocked down by a speeding vehicle, was suffering in pain and was in need of immediate medical attention, that person is obviously under a traumatic condition. His first attempt will be to take his brother to a hospital or to a doctor. It is but natural for such a person not to be conscious of the presence of any person in the vicinity especially when Dheeraj did not stop at the spot after the accident and gave a chase to the offending vehicle. Under such mental strain if the brother of the victim forgot to take down the number of the offending vehicle it was also not unnatural. 9. There is no reason why the Tribunal and the High Court would ignore the otherwise reliable evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. In fact, no cogent reason has been assigned either by the Tribunal or by the High Court for discarding the evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. 9. There is no reason why the Tribunal and the High Court would ignore the otherwise reliable evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. In fact, no cogent reason has been assigned either by the Tribunal or by the High Court for discarding the evidence of Dheeraj Kumar. The so-called reason that as the name of Dheeraj Kumar was not mentioned in the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj Kumar to see the incident, is not a proper assessment of the fact situation in this case. It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.” 10. In view of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, the approach adopted by learned Tribunal, while considering the testimony of P.W.-2, does not appear to be proper. The Driver of the offending truck admitted the factum of accident and owner of the truck also did not make any specific denial of the averments made in the Claim Petition. P.W.-2 testified that he saw the registration number of the truck in its backlight which was brushed aside on a wrong premise. The learned Tribunal, thus, was in error in rejecting the Claim Petition, by holding that the truck in question was not involved in the accident. 11. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment & order dated 26.04.2012 passed by learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. Case No. 39 of 2007 is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Consequently, the Appeal is allowed and impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to learned Tribunal to take decision on the question of quantum of compensation payable to the claimants, within six months. 12. Registry is directed to forthwith communicate this order to learned Tribunal. Record of the case may also be sent back.