Motor Vehicle Accident – Victim-deceased was travelling in a car along with his friend, respondent no. 2 and two other occupants – Respondent no. 2 (owner of the car) was driving the car at night, when a truck came from the opposite side and struck the car as a result of which all the occupants suffered injuries – They were all rushed to the hospital – Victim was discharged – However, he kept experiencing one after another medical complication and eventually died due to injuries – Victim-deceased’s dependents filed a claim petition for Rs. 60,94,000/- and alleged that victim died due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 – The Tribunal relied upon the statement of the eye-witness, AW-3, according to whom respondent no. 2 was driving car at a very fast speed when it overtook a vehicle and collided head-on against the oncoming truck – The Tribunal assigned liability for the accident upon the respondents and partly allowed the claim petition with a compensation of Rs.16,08,000/- – The High Court set aside the Tribunal award and dismissed the claim petition – The High Court disbelieved AW-3 and found him unreliable witness – According to the High Court, AW-3 had failed to report the accident to the jurisdictional police and he was apparently introduced by the claimants only to seek compensation – Also, it was held that the assertion of AW-3 that he took the injured to the hospital was not proved – Further, the FIR was lodged by the owner-cum-driver, respondent no. 2, who would not have done so had he been at fault or driving rashly – On appeal, held: Some material facts have escaped notice of the High Court – The FIR was not registered by the owner-cum-driver of the car as assumed by the High Court – It was registered by one person ‘P’, who had not witnessed the accident and lodged on basis of the hearsay information – Further, the informant had some closeness with the owner-cum-driver of the car – His version is hearsay and may be influenced by respondent no.2 and thus, cannot be relied upon – The contents of the FIR as well as the statement of AW-3 leave no room to doubt that the injured were taken to the hospital by private persons (and not by the Police) – There is nothing on record to suggest that the Police reached the site of the accident or carried the injured to the hospital – AW-3 is neither related to the deceased nor was he remotely connected to the family of the deceased – The statement of AW-3, therefore, acquires significance as, according to him, he brought the injured in his car – It is quite natural that such a person who had accompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid, could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodge the FIR – The High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to police – Further, failure of the respondents to cross-examine the solitary eye-witness, AW-3 must lead to an inference of tacit admission on their part – Also, the fact that respondent no. 2 chose not to depose in support of what he had pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he himself was at fault – The High Court failed to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases – The standard of proof in such matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt – Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appellants are entitled to compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, besides 40% addition in the annual income of the deceased towards ‘future prospects’.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The two questions which fall for determination are whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver and whether AW-3 is a reliable witness or not? [Para 10][1124-F-G]
2. AW-3 is neither related to the deceased nor was he remotely connected to the family of the deceased. He hailed from a different State and lived in a faraway place. There is nothing to suggest that the witness had any business dealings with the deceased or his family. He has deposed that he was travelling in his own car on the date of the incident on the same route when the owner-cum-driver of the car carelessly overtook him at a very high speed. He has further deposed that a truck coming from the opposite side collided with the car. Various persons gathered at the place of accident and four persons trapped inside the car were taken out, three of whom were unconscious and the fourth was its driver. The witness has further deposed that he took all the four injured persons to the District Hospital. [Para 13][1125-FH]
3. While the contents of the FIR as well as the statement of (AW-3) leave no room to doubt that the injured were taken to the Hospital by private persons (and not by the police), it is quite natural that the police would also have reached the Government hospital at Ghazipur and, therefore, it was mentioned that respondent no. 2 was brought-in by Sub-Inspector. [Para 15][1126D-E]
4. It is commonplace for most people to be hesitant about being involved in legal proceedings and they therefore do not volunteer to become witnesses. Hence, it is highly likely that the name of AW-3 or other persons who accompanied the injured to the hospital did not find mention in the medical record. There is nothing on record to suggest that the police reached the site of the accident or carried the injured to the hospital. The statement of AW-3, therefore, acquires significance as, according to him, he brought the injured in his car to the hospital. AW-3 acted as a good samaritan and a responsible citizen, and the High Court ought not to have disbelieved his testimony based merely on a conjecture. It is necessary to reiterate the independence and benevolence of AW-3. Without any personal interest or motive, he assisted both the deceased by taking him to the hospital and later his family by expending time and effort to depose before the Tribunal. [Para 16][1126-E-H]
5. It is quite natural that such a person who had accompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid, could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodge the FIR. The High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to Police. Further, as the police had themselves reached the hospital upon having received information about the accident, there was perhaps no occasion for AW-3 to lodge a report once again to the police at a later stage either. [Para 17][1127-A-B]
6. The failure of the respondents to cross examine the solitary eye-witness 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 cross-examination of a crucial witness. [Para 19][1128-A-B]
7. This Court is concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. 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 non-examination 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. [Para 22][1130-B-D]
8. The observation of the High Court that the author of the FIR (as per its judgment, the owner-cum-driver) had not been examined as a witness, and hence adverse inference ought to be drawn against the appellant-claimants, is wholly misconceived and misdirected. Not only is the owner-cum-driver not the author of the FIR, but instead he is one of the contesting respondents in the Claim Petition who, along with insurance company, is an interested party with a pecuniary stake in the result of the case. If the owner-cum-driver of the car were setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but the truck driver’s carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place. The fact that respondent no.2 chose not to depose in support of what he has pleaded in his written statement, further suggests that he was himself at fault. The High Court, therefore, ought not to have shifted the burden of proof. [Para 23][1130-FH; 1131-A-B] Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand (2011) 11 SCC 635 : [2011]
1 SCR 1096; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 : [1994] 2 SCR 375; Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (2019) SCC Online SC 195; Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013)
10 SCC 646 : [2013] 10 SCR 480 – relied on.
National Insurance Co Ltd v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 : [2017] 13 SCR 100 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.