Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : s. 482 – Quashing of final report – Motor accident matter – Rash and negligent driving – Appellant’s son was driving a car which collided with the gas tanker lorry – Death of appellant’s son and five others travelling in the car – Claim petition by the respondent no. 1 and the legal representative of the deceased passengers – Claim petition also filed by the appellant against the driver and the insurer of the tanker lorry, and against the owner – FIR against the appellant’s son u/s.
279 and 304 A, however, abatement of charges against him on his death – Submission of the final report by police that the incident was an unavoidable accident, not attributable to negligence on the part of the appellant’s son – Two years later, petition u/s. 482 by the respondent no. 1 for quashing of the final report – High Court quashed the final report – On appeal, held : Opinions expressed by the High Court which are in the nature of findings while considering the correctness of the final report and thereby quashing the same was, not a correct and proper approach adopted by the High Court – Order passed by the High Court is set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 279, 304 A.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Motor accident – Claim for compensation – Negligence – Burden of proof – Held : Motor accident matter has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt – On facts, in a claim petition by the appellant alleging negligence on part of the driver of the tanker lorry and the pick up van in causing the accident resulting in the death of his son and five others travelling with him, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved – It was for the appellant to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry – Opinion in the final report that the incident was an unavoidable accident, not attributable to negligence on the part of the appellant’s son, would not have a bearing on the petition – In the claim petitions filed by the dependents of the other deceased passengers, they have to similarly establish the negligence in accordance with law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court made observations which are in the nature of findings while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report impugned before the High Court. Further, the observations of the High Court to the effect that the car driven by the appellant’s son, was being driven rashly; that the car had gone astray to the wrong side; that the possibility that the driver of the car had driven the car after consuming alcohol cannot be ruled out; that rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the car is patent and that this is a clear case in which the principle of res ispa loquitor applies, are in the nature of findings which were wholly unnecessary to be made while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on further investigation of the case. It is on the basis of the said observations which are in the nature of findings that the High Court has quashed the report made pursuant to further investigation by opining that the incident is attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the Alto car. The opinions expressed which are in the nature of findings while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on a further investigation of the case and thereby quashing the same is, not a correct and proper approach adopted by the High Court. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside. [Para 8][1088-D-H; 1089-A]
1.2. Insofar as the claim petition filed by the appellant is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim petitions filed by the appellant or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as the case may be, in causing the accident. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits. If the proof of negligence on the part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not established then, in that event, the claim petition would be disposed of accordingly. [Para 9] [1089-B-D]
1.3. It is for the appellant to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry in the petition filed by him seeking compensation on account of death of his son in the said accident. Thus, the opinion in the final report would not have a bearing on the claim petition for the said reasons. This is because the appellant is seeking compensation for the death of his son in the accident which occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry, causing the accident on the said date. In the claim petitions filed by the dependents, in respect of the other passengers in the car who died in the accident, they have to similarly establish the negligence in accordance with law. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 10 and 11][1090-A-C] N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Anmal AIR 1980 SC 1354 : [1980] 3 SCR 101; Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2009) 13 SCC 530 :
[2009] 6 SCR 362; Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 : [2013] 10 SCR 480 – 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.