The division judge bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt in the case of Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors held 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.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the Ghasita Ram died due to a motor vehicle accident. Thereafter, the appellants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Learned Tribunal, seeking compensation amounting to Rs.91,46,000/- along with interest. The learned tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.19,64,218.75/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the decretal amount. The appeal was filed before the high court and the high court awarded the compensation of Rs.8,16,670/.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the high court was not justified in rejecting the pay slip and salary certificate of the deceased by holding that the person issuing the said documents was not examined. The learned counsel relied upon the judgements titled United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shila Datta & Ors, Ramachanrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Nanu Ram & Ors.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased could not be proved either before the Learned Tribunal or before the High Court, and as such, grant of compensation awarded by the High Court is just, fair and reasonable and requires no interference by this Court.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The apex court held that it is well settled that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to award just and fair compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases, i.e., to say,
"The standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases the High Court has committed a error while rejecting the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased merely on the ground that the person issuing the two aforementioned documents was not examined before the Learned Tribunal. The said documents are conclusive proof of the income of the deceased and were also corroborated by the statements of the deceased’s wife (Appellant No. 1 herein) and his co-workers. As such, the High Court was not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.4,836/- per month on the basis of minimum wages fixed by the State at the relevant time. Resultantly, we affirm the findings of the Learned Tribunal so far as they relate to assessing the deceased’s income at Rs.11,225/- per month on the basis of aforementioned two documents. Annual income of the deceased, therefore, amounts to, Rs.11,225/- x 12 = Rs.1,34,700/-."
CASE NAME- Rajwati @ Rajjo & Ors Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd & Ors
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8179 OF 2022
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30754 of 2019]
CORUM- Justice Krishna Murari and Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt
DATE- 09.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
