Chanda Srivastava And 6 Others vs Shadab Ahmad And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 3867 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 991 of 2017
 

 
Appellant :- Chanda Srivastava And 6 Others
 
Respondent :- Shadab Ahmad And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ankur Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Vishesh Kumar Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

(Oral Judgment by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 22.07.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Act) Court No.1, Varanasi passed in MACP No.83 of 2014 (Smt. Chanda Srivastava and others Vs. Shadab Ahmad and others), by way of which, the claim petition of the appellants/claimants was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the appellants before the learned Tribunal for seeking compensation of death of Kripa Shankar Lal, employee of Income Tax Department, who died in a road accident. As per the averments made in the claim petition on 10.10.2013 at about 8:00 pm, the deceased was travelling in car bearing No. UP 65 CT 3842 with Income Tax Officer Shri Himanshu Kumar from Varanasi to Lucknow in connection with official work. The driver of the car was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. When they reached at village Asroga, Police Station- Kudwar, District Sultanpur, the driver of the car lost the balance and control due to high speed seeing a truck, coming from the opposite direction and the car overturned beside the road. In this accident Kripa Shankar Lal and Himanshu Kumar sustained serious injuries. They were taken to the government hospital, Sultanpur, where Kripa Shankar Lal died. The accident took place due to negligence of car driver.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence on record as it did not consider the oral and documentary evidence of claimants in the right perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that the principles of compensation in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 envisage a beneficial legislation and strict rules to prove the petition are not required. Trial before the Tribunal is summary in nature. Learned counsel submitted that it was night at the time of accident and an unknown truck came from opposite direction and the eyes of car driver were dazzled in the headlights of the truck and since the car driver was moving at a high speed, he could not control the vehicle and it overturned after getting disbalanced. It is next submitted that PW2 Himanshu Kumar is the eye-witness of the accident because he himself was travelling in the car. He has deposed before the learned Tribunal and in his testimony he has specifically deposed that the driver of the car became uncomfortable because his eyes were dazzled in the light of the truck, coming from opposite direction and due to high speed of the car, the driver lost control and car was overturned. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not believed this part of the evidence, which could not be disbelieved because there is no dispute that PW2 was travelling in the car and he was the best witness to narrate the manner of accident. It is further submitted that the car driver has also appeared before the learned Tribunal as DW2, namely, Salman Ali. He has deposed that an unknown truck hit the car from behind. Learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the basis of the statement made by car driver DW2 without considering the fact that no driver would admit his negligence. Hence, claim petition was wrongly rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that first information report of the accident was lodged at police station against unknown vehicle and during investigation no such vehicle could be traced and investigating officer submitted final report. Hence, the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that the technical inspection report of the car goes to show that all the damages in the car are on the rear side which shows that the car was hit by a vehicle from behind and due to that reason it was overturned on the right side of the road. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellants and the claim petition was rejected.

6. The compensatory jurisprudence under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. The burden of proof in claim petitions is not as strict as it is in civil or criminal matters. While deciding the claim petition, the learned Tribunal had not kept in mind the principles of standard of proof in motor accident claim petition.

7. In Anita Sharma and Others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171, the Full Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court narrated the view taken in Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand, (2011) 11 SCC 635, that it is very difficult to trace the witnesses and collecting information for an accident which took place many hundreds of kilometers away and further it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Anita Sharma and Others (Supra) that 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.

8. The Division Bench of Madras High Court also held in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Subbulakshmi and Others, passed in C.MA. No. 1482 of 2017 [C.M.P. No. 7919 of 2017. (CMA Sr. No. 76893 of 2016)] has referred the case of Puspabai Purshottam Udeshi Vs. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co., 1977ACJ 343 (SC), in which it is observed that the normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident 'speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the car was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who had the management used proper care.

9. In Bimla Devi and Others VS. Himachal RTC reported in 2009 (13) SCC 530, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle 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.

10. In the case on hand, the appellants have brought the case that at the time of accident the eyes of car driver were dazzled in the headlight of a truck which was coming from opposite direction and since the car was being driven at a very high speed, the driver of the car could not maintain the balance and lost control and car was overturned beside the road. Hence, it does not make any difference if that unknown truck could not be traced by the investigating officer and final report was submitted because it is not a case that unknown truck hit the car. Learned Tribunal has relied on technical inspection report of the car and held that it was having damage on the rear side. Hence, the manner of the accident, as contemplated by the appellants, was not believed. It is also held that the driver of the car stepped into the witness-box and deposed that he was driving at a moderate speed. Had it been so, the car could not overturn. The technical report cannot be the sole basis on which the Tribunal could rely heavily as held in the judgement of the Apex Court in Archit Saini and Antother Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2018 SC 1143. The issue of negligence is also required in this matter. It is also pertinent to mention that the informant of First Information Report was also examined on behalf of the appellants as PW3. Although, he has written an FIR that when he reached at the spot of the accident, people told him that some unknown vehicle had hit the car but in his own deposition as PW3 before the learned Tribunal he has also stated that the accident had taken place because eyes of the car driver were dazzled in the headlight of the truck coming from the opposite direction. Morever, in this case PW2 Himanshu Kumar who is Income Tax Officer, is the best eye-witness who could bring the fact before the learned Tribunal as to how the accident had taken place because he himself was travelling in the car alongwith the deceased. He has specifically deposed that the accident had taken place due to negligence of the driver of the car because he was driving at a very high speed and his eyes were dazzled when the headlights of the truck, coming from opposite direction, met with his eyes, due to high speed he could not control the car and lost control over it. Learned Tribunal has not given any justification or cogent reason to disbelieve evidence. Hence, the learned Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the evidence of co-passenger. Hence, there is sufficient evidence on record which convinces us that the accident had taken place because the car driver was driving at a very high speed as a result of which he could not control the car and it was overturned after being disbalanced. Hence, the finding of the learned Tribunal is upturned and we hold the driver of the car negligent.

11. The deceased was a salaried person. As the matter is pending since the year 2014, we remit back the matter to the learned Tribunal to decide the issue of compensation alongwith other issues except the issue Nos.1 and 5 on the basis of judgements of the Apex Court and this High Court as the deceased was a salaried person. Matter be decided within three months from the date when certified copy of this judgement is placed before the Tribunal and the record is received by the Tribunal.

12. Record be sent back to the Tribunal forthwith.

(Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.) (Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

Order Date :- 24.5.2022

Ashutosh Pandey