Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has emphasised that an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is essentially in the nature of the first appeal like Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code and the High Court is under a legal obligation to decide all issues both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. 

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision, which by a cryptic order, set aside the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maihar granting a compensation of Rs 50,41,289 to one Geeta Dubey and her son for the death of her husband, Chakradhar Dubey, Assistant Post Master, in a road accident in Satna on June 18, 2018.

Considering the appeal by the deceased's family members, the bench said, "We are surprised that in a First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court has made a short shrift of the matter and by a summary order reversed the detailed award passed by the MACT".

The court said that an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of the First Appeal.

"In our considered view, the least that is expected is a careful marshalling of the oral and documentary evidence produced before the MACT," the bench said.

Court noted that except for a fleeting reference to the evidence of PW 2 Sonu Shukla, an eye witness, there was no real discussion on the substance of his deposition. 

It pointed out that the matter of concern was that there was no reference at all to the final report, the First Information Report, the seizure memo of the vehicle after the issuance of Section 133 notice under the Motor Vehicles Act and also no discussion on the findings of the MACT.

The bench itself analysed the facts of the matter, after having noted that the incident was of the year 2018, and already 6 years had elapsed, and that any further delay would only compound the agony of the already devastated family. 

"Except for a bare assertion that the vehicle has been wrongly involved, the insurance company which has setup a plea of collusion has done nothing to make good its case. We find that the judgment of the High Court is wholly untenable," the bench said.

The bench highlighted that it is well settled that 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, we find that the claimants have established their case that it was the truck bearing registration no MP-19-HA-1197 which was involved in the accident with car bearing no MP-19-CB-5879 wherein the deceased was travelling," the bench said.

Among other factors, the bench pointed out that what was important to note was that the FIR did mention material particulars like time of the accident, the place of the accident and also the fact that it was an unknown truck that had hit the car, and about the injuries sustained by the deceased.

As per the charge-sheet the accident was caused by the driver of the truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 by driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and hitting the car bearing No. MP-19-CB-5879; that Chakradhar Dubey, who was sitting in the car had died during the course of treatment and that the vehicle-truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 was seized. The truck was thereafter given on Supurdnama by the Court. The charge-sheet stated that on completion of investigation, Challan was prepared and filed in the court. In the charge-sheet, 20 witnesses were listed and R-2 Ajay Kumar Saket S/o Harideen Saket was shown as accused.

The bench pointed out that one of the pleas of the insurance company was that there was contributory negligence. 

Even the insurance company did not dispute the factum of accident and the factum of the death of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey. The only dispute is about the involvement of the truck bearing no. MP-19-HA-1197 on which the MACT found that there was adequate evidence to show its involvement in the accident, it said.

Having noted the claimants had explained the delay, the bench said, "They 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 but it has not been established so".

"We feel that there was no reason for the police to falsely implicate the vehicle concerned in the matter and launch prosecution against the driver," the bench said.

The court felt if the insurance company had suspected collusion, they would have taken steps to file appropriate complaints including moving the higher police authorities or the court to order an investigation into the alleged wrongful involvement of the vehicle. There is no case for the insurance company that the police officer also colluded. The investigation by the police has resulted in charge-sheet being filed, it highlighted.

The court thus restored the findings recorded by the MACT, also rejecting a contention by the insurance company about the age of the deceased as claimants proved it to be 55 years.

Case Title: Geeta Dubey & Ors Vs United India Insurance Co Ltd & Ors