Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.173 – Appeals – Motor accident – Prosecution case that the respondent no. 2, who was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car in which the victim was travelling – Victim sustained serious injuries, was treated in the hospital and died after few days – Claim petition – MACT allowed the claim of the wife and son of the victim and awarded compensation against the respondents jointly and severally – High Court set aside the award holding that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to prove the aspect of the accident taking place with the vehicle implicated in the case – Correctness:
Held: Appeal u/s.173 is essentially in the nature of the first appeal – High Court is under a legal obligation to decide all issues both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence – This is a fortiori when the High Court proposes to reverse the well-reasoned award – On facts, in a first appeal filed u/s. 173, the High Court made a short shrift of the matter and by a summary order reversed the detailed award passed by the MACT – Except for a fleeting reference to the evidence of the prosecution witness, no real discussion on the substance of his deposition – No reference at all to final report, the FIR, the seizure memo of the vehicle after the issuance of s.133 notice and also no discussion on the findings of the MACT – Except for a bare assertion that the vehicle was wrongly involved, the insurance company which has setup a plea of collusion did nothing to make good its case – Judgment of the High Court wholly untenable – In claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt – Applying the test of preponderance of probability, the claimants have established their case that it was the said truck which was involved in the accident with car wherein the deceased was travelling – Claimants having discharged the initial onus, if the insurance company had a case that there was collusion between the driver/owner of the truck and the claimants, it ought to discharge that burden – It is candidly admitted by the witness that they took no steps in this regard – On the principle of preponderance of probability, the claimants have established the involvement of vehicle – No reason for the police to falsely implicate the vehicle concerned and launch prosecution against the driver – No case for the insurance company that the police officer also colluded – Investigation by the police resulted in charge-sheet being filed – Findings of the MACT that death of the claimant’s husband was caused by the driving of the said truck by respondent no. 2 in a rash and negligent manner restored – No evidence adduced by the insurance company to show that the age was 58 years – Claimants proved that the age of the deceased was
55 years – Judgment of the High Court quashed and set aside – Award passed by the MACT restored. [Paras 16-26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.