Recently, the Gujarat High Court emphasised that the tribunal must adopt a sensitive and pragmatic approach, ensuring just and fair compensation to the victims of road accidents.
While hearing an appeal against the dismissal of a motor accident compensation claim, the Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim based on minor inconsistencies.
Brief Facts:
The present first appeal was filed under Section 173 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellants, who were the original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 4.9.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 11 of 2020.
On 23.08.2019, the deceased, Sharifbhai, along with the appellants, went to a Durgah for worship. After parking the car near the passage of the Durgah, the deceased went outside to attend to nature’s call. While walking on the road, he was hit by respondent No. 1, who was driving a motorcycle in a rash, reckless, and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to death.
The deceased was engaged in farming as well as agricultural labour, earning a monthly income of Rs. 25,000. Being at a young age and in good health, he was expected to continue earning and supporting his family in the future. The appellants, therefore, filed a claim petition for Rs. 30,00,000 (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) along with interest, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable for compensation.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the tribunal committed a serious error in dismissing the claim on the premise that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was contended that the driver and owner of the vehicle had accepted in their written statement that the vehicle was involved in the accident.
It was further submitted that in claims filed under Sections 166 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt but on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. The claimant had provided sufficient evidence to establish the case, but the tribunal dismissed the claim based on minor inconsistencies that did not affect the core facts.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to the depositions of medical officers from Gokul Hospital and Synergy Hospital, wherein the case history recorded stated that the deceased was hit by an unknown four-wheeler. It was contended that the First Information Report (FIR) was filed eight days after the accident, and the vehicle was later found on the road with bloodstains, raising suspicion of the vehicle’s involvement. The respondents alleged that the claimants, in conspiracy with the driver and owner of the motorcycle, implanted the vehicle into the case and filed the claim petition fraudulently.
Observations of the Court:
The court examined the pleadings, evidence, and depositions on record. The tribunal had framed three key issues: whether the deceased died due to an accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle, whether the applicants were entitled to compensation, and against whom the award should be passed.
The tribunal recorded the deposition of the eyewitness, Anishaben, who categorically denied the defence’s suggestion that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident. The FIR, lodged on 30.08.2019, mentioned clear allegations of rash and negligent driving by the motorcycle rider. The spot panchnama was drawn on 24.08.2019, a day after the accident, and the charge sheet was filed against opponent No. 1 for rash and negligent driving. Additionally, Form 54, as per the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, was placed on record. The court noted that all these documents, taken together, provided overwhelming evidence to establish the involvement of the motorcycle in the accident. The driver-cum-owner had also admitted to the occurrence of the accident in his written statement.
The court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rajani Sahoo, wherein it was held that claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities rather than strict proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court criticised the tribunal’s approach of dismissing the claim on minor inconsistencies rather than adopting a holistic view of the evidence. It held that the tribunal should have prioritised the principles of justice and fair compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court found that the tribunal had taken an excessively technical and insensitive approach, ignoring the fundamental objective of motor accident compensation laws.
The court further pointed out that the insurance company had failed to provide any evidence to challenge the claimants’ version. The deposition of medical officers relied upon by the respondents was not corroborated by direct evidence. The burden of proving an alternative version of the accident lay on the insurance company, which failed to enter the witness box to substantiate its contention.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Suresh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, was referred, emphasising that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act should be just and fair, neither a windfall nor a pittance. The court underscored that tribunals handling motor accident cases must adopt a sensitive approach, as victims and their families often deal with significant physical, emotional, and financial trauma.
The decision of the Court:
The first appeal was allowed, and the tribunal’s order was quashed and set aside.
Case Title: Anishaben Sharifbhai Solanki & Ors. vs. Sachinbhai Bharatbhai Suvagiya & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. C. Doshi
Case No.:R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4134 of 2024
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Monal S. Chaglani
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Harivadan Patel, Mr. Raj M. Thakkar
Picture Source :
