Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has observed that in motor accident claim cases, courts must apply the principles of preponderance of probability, rather than the stricter standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra also emphasised that a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation. 

Considering an appeal filed by the widow, minor child and parents of a deceased bike rider, the bench noted that the courts below had recorded the finding of non involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness. 

"There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in the accident," the bench said.

The court noted that the evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability could record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar was not possible. 

The court further pointed out that the Mahazar clearly recorded that the front bumper right side of the car was broken, front right parking light was broken, and the grill fitted above the front bumper was curved. 

"With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident," the bench said.

The court set aside the finding of the courts below that the car was not involved in the accident, resultantly, holding that the deceased died as a result of accident involving the car. 

The bench, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the courts below and allowed the claim petition filed by one Sajheena Ikhbal and others to award compensation to the appellants at Rs 46,31,496 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the payment. It had to be made within three months, failing which, the award amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

The case before the court related to challenge to the judgment and order of July 23, 2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala dismissing the appellants’ appeal while affirming the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by which the claim petition was rejected.

One Ikhbal died in an accident on June 10, 2013 being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding on his motorcycle from Thodupuzha to Muttom. He died of the injuries sustained in the said accident which allegedly occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the car. 

The deceased was an employee as UD Clerk in the Registration Department and had a monthly income of Rs 21,456.

The MACT assessed the compensation and held that the appellants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs 46,31,496. However, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it was proved that the car was involved in the accident. The said findings were affirmed by the High Court.

Going by the evidence of the witnesses, the bench pointed out that it was apparent that the car had suffered damages; the car driver admitted that the bus was 100 feet away when the motorcycle hit the car; an eyewitness, had narrated the accident and the driver of the bus also spoke about hearing the sound of the accident and nearby people telling him that the car had hit the bike.

Case Title: Sajheena Ikhbal & Ors Vs Mini Babu George & Ors