The Jharkhand High Court has held that mere assertion by a witness that vehicle was driven rashly and in a negligent manner would not suffice to draw final conclusion.
The single-judge bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary stressed that Courts must draw inference from the entire picture emerging from the case including everything, from statements to evidence and shouldn't solely weigh on a single factor.
The appeals filed were in challenge to compensation awarded by Tribunal on the finding of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles in equal share.
The owner and Insurer Company of one of the vehicle has contested the claim on the ground that the accident didn't take place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of this vehicle rather it was on account of head-on collision with Truck. It was contended that the claimants have deliberately shifted the liability on the owner and insurer of the passenger vehicle.
The insurer of the truck has contested the claim on the plea that the driver of driven vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license.
On the basis of discrepencies in the FIR and Charge-sheet, it was argued that the finding that the driver of the vehicle was Mansur Mian is perverse. The vehicle was under insurance cover at the relevant point of time and there has not been any breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy so as to entitle the Insurance Company to right to recovery, it was further averred.
Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that at the stage of enquiry before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, the driving license was not the part of record and no document regarding license had been filed with respect to driver Mansur Mian and therefore, right to recovery has been rightly given to the Insurance Company.
High Court's Analysis
The main question that emerged from appeals was whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding composite negligence is sustainable in view of the inconsistent evidence on the point?
The Court took note of the fact that the eye witness to the accident has deposed that he was on his motor cycle at the time of accident near the place of occurrence. He has described the manner of accident and has stated that the truck was coming at a high speed and the passenger vehicle was also being driven at a high speed. Both the vehicles came to a head on collision. He has stated the passenger vehicle was being driven in a ‘rough’ manner.
It discarded the statement of the daughter of the deceased who was travelling in the vehicle along with her father who has deposed that a truck came at a high speed and dashed against the bus.
The Court reasoned that the accident took place 15 years ago in 2005 whereas the evidence was recorded in 2020 when she has stated her age to be 12 years and going by it she should not have even been born at the time of accident.
The Court observed that inquiry under M. V. Act, being civil and summary in nature, the onus of proof is lighter and based on preponderance of probability than that in criminal cases and therefore Court should access every aspect wholesomely.
"The inference whether a vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently is an inference that has to be drawn by the Courts on the basis of different particulars that come up regarding the manner of accident that emerge on the basis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary. It is for the Courts to piece together the evidence and draw an inference on the manner of accident. Mere assertion by a witness that a particular vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently cannot be the last word on the basis of which a Court will draw its conclusions. Different factors to be considered are the speed of vehicle, the type of vehicle, whether it was loaded or not, road conditions, the place of occurrence i.e. whether it was a high way or a crowded area, the side of road on which the accident took place etc."
After comparing all three testamonies, the Court noted that in the absence of any other contrary evidence by preponderance of probability the only and only inference that can be drawn is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Savari Vehicle. As the driver of the vehicle is already been convicted by Criminal Court, the Court mentioned that it is the proposition of law that the finding of a criminal court is not binding on a civil court citing Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad, 2009 Latest Caselaw 382 SC
Case Detail: M. A. No. 201 of 2010, M. A. No. 212 of 2010, M. A. No. 09 of 2011
Coram: Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Read Judgement Here:
Picture Source :