The SC in, Anita Sharma & Ors. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr, expressed displeasure over the approach of HC on examination of witness and stated that the role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with nonexamination of some best eyewitnesses but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record.
Facts
The petitioner died in a car crash driven by one of the respondents. The petitioner’s dependents filed a claim petition for Rs 60,94,000 and stated that death took place due to a rash drive of the respondent. An insurance company was also made respondent along with the owner cum driver. The owner rejected the accusation of being negligent. The insurance company stated that according to FIR, the accident was caused by an unknown truck that hit the car. Therefore, the claim petition filed against the owner of the car or its insurer was contrary to law. The factual averments made in the Claim Petition were denied for want of knowledge.
Decision of MACT and HC
The Tribunal relied on the eye witness and assigned liability for the accident upon the respondents and partly allowed the Claim Petition with a compensation of Rs. 16,08,000. The respondents approached the HC. The HC set aside the Tribunal’s award and dismissed the claim petition for the reasons that first, the eye witness had failed to report the accident to the jurisdictional police. Second, the FIR had been lodged by the owner who would not have done so had he been at fault or driving rashly, and third, the eye-witness’s contention that he took the injured to the hospital was not proved from the records.
Analysis
It was stated that there were fallacies in the observations of HC. the FIR was not registered by the owner but by one person related to the respondent upon hearsay information. The assertions of another eyewitness were taken into account which stated that the respondent was indeed driving rash. Most importantly, the only question asked to this witness in crossexamination is whether the truck that hit the car could be spotted and whether he was able to note the registration number of the truck. No other question was asked to this witness in the cross-examination.
Findings
It was stated that the eye witness acted as a good samaritan in helping the deceased and others in the car, to take them to the hospital. It was also stated that the HC ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to Police. Apart from this, the SC expressed their displeasure over the failure of respondents to cross-examine the eye witness and stated, “The failure of the respondents to cross-examine the solitary eyewitness or confront him with their version, despite adequate opportunity, must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part. They did not even suggest the witness that he was siding with the claimants. The High Court has failed to appreciate the legal effect of this absence of crossexamination of a crucial witness.”
The SC also showed their displeasure over the approach HC in examining eye-witnesses and stated, “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 nonexamination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true.”
The SC while setting aside the judgment of Rajasthan HC stated that the appellants are held entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, besides a 40% addition in the annual income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’. The tribunal was also asked to recalculate the amount and the company was ordered to deposit the same amount.
Case Details
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 40104011 of 2020 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 3201132012 of 2018
Coram- J. SURYA KANT and J. ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Read Judgment
Share this Document :Picture Source :
