In FAO-4758-2009(O&M)-PUNJ HC- In road accident case, claimants cannot be called upon to establish accident by proving it with mathematical certainty & evidence in such case has to be evaluated on principles of preponderance of probabilities: P&H HC
Justice Harkesh Manuja [10-10-2022]

Read Order: Pushpa Devi v. Deepak Gulati and Another 

While dealing with an appeal against the dismissal of the claim petition on account of inability of the injured in proving the factum of accident, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that in case of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the evidence has to be evaluated on the principles of preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond doubt.

“In a case of road accident, the claimants cannot be called upon to establish an accident by proving it with mathematical certainty. Of course, collusion between the claimant and the owner/ Driver is one of the exceptions to the afore-stated principle, though the same is missing in the present case”, the Bench of Justice Harkesh Manuja. 

While traveling in a three wheeler, the appellant along with her co-student was hit by a car. On account of injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident, the appellant filed a claim petition praying for an award of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation along with interest, alleging rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. 

Separate written statements denying the factum of the accident were filed by the driver (also owner) of the offending vehicle and the insurance company. Later, the driver was proceeded against ex-parte while the insurance company filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This application was allowed and the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the accident in question was not proved as it was a case of hit and run.

Hence, the present appeal. 

While assailing the order of dismissal of the claim petition, the appellant’s counsel contended that there was a misreading of the statements made by Dr. Satish Kumar (first prosecution witness) and the appellant herself who appeared as the fifth prosecution witness. Thus, the Counsel submitted that the accident in question was duly proved on record along with negligence on the part of the driver. 

At the very outset the Court opined, after considering the rival submissions that the Tribunal fell into an error of law while appreciating the evidence, having lost sight of the fact that the present case pertained to a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act which is a beneficial legislation and as such the hyper-technical approach as regards the rigour of proof of cause of action cannot be made applicable as that required in civil suits.

While referring to the position of law laid down by the Top Court, the Bench opined that in case of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the evidence has to be evaluated on the principles of preponderance of probabilities and rather than proof beyond doubt and the claimants cannot be called upon to establish an accident by proving it with mathematical certainty, with the exception of collusion between the claimant and the owner/ Driver. 

Averting to the present case, the Court opined that the Tribunal based its findings on a misreading of evidence. The Bench in fact opined that while recording that instant case was of hit & run accident, the Tribunal failed to appreciate the statement of PW1 in toto. It was noted by the Court that initially the injured as well as his parents/ relatives did not know the details of the offending vehicle, however, having made an effort, later they found the particulars and informed the police immediately. 

Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal was wrong in recording that as the offending vehicle was not traced out by the police during investigation, it raised doubt about the authenticity of its involvement. 

“Mere fact that the particulars about the offending vehicle was traced out by the appellant/ claimant and her family members/relatives within a reasonable period of the date of accident in question by making their strenuous efforts, the same cannot be brushed aside in the absence of any proof of collusion between the appellant /claimant and respondent No.1 which is totally missing in the present case”, the Court asserted. 

Additionally, the Court also opined that the Insurance Company, having raised the plea of collusion in its application under Section 170 of the Act, was required to discharge its burden to establish the same, but it failed to produce even a single witness in this regard, accordingly, an adverse inference was required to be drawn against it.

Accordingly, the impugned award passed by Tribunal, was hereby set aside and for determination of the quantum of compensation to be awarded in favour of claimant/ appellant, based on the evidence available on record.