Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — The appellants, family members of the deceased claimed compensation for his death in a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the car driver — Whether the car driven by respondent no. 2 was involved in the accident and if the accident was due to the negligence of the car driver — The appellants argued that there was ample evidence showing the car’s involvement and that the lower courts misread the evidence — The respondents contended that the accident was due to the deceased’s negligence and that the car was not involved — The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ findings, holding that the car was involved in the accident and awarded compensation to the appellants — The Court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and the condition of the car, supported the involvement of the car in the accident — The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, to conclude the car’s involvement — The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were awarded compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest.

Bysclaw

Oct 21, 2024

2024 INSC 787

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

SAJEENA IKHBAL AND OTHERS — Appellant

Vs.

MINI BABU GEORGE AND OTHERS — Respondent

( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )

Civil Appeal No(s). 7881 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 25114 of 2019)

Decided on : 17-10-2024

A. Motor Accident Claims — The court emphasized that in motor accident cases, the court should apply the principle of preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt — The burden of proof is on the claimant to prove their case on a balance of probabilities.

B. Motor Accident Claims — The court held that a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that the police did not record their statement during investigation — The court should consider all the evidence on record, including eyewitness accounts, to determine the facts of the case.

C. Motor Accident Claims — The court found that damages to the car, as recorded in the Mahazar, were consistent with the car being involved in the accident — The court held that the court should consider all the evidence, including physical damages to vehicles, to determine the facts of the case.

D. Motor Accident Claims — The appellants, family members of the deceased claimed compensation for his death in a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the car driver — Whether the car driven by respondent no. 2 was involved in the accident and if the accident was due to the negligence of the car driver — The appellants argued that there was ample evidence showing the car’s involvement and that the lower courts misread the evidence — The respondents contended that the accident was due to the deceased’s negligence and that the car was not involved — The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ findings, holding that the car was involved in the accident and awarded compensation to the appellants — The Court found that the evidence, including witness testimonies and the condition of the car, supported the involvement of the car in the accident — The Court applied the principle of preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt, to conclude the car’s involvement — The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were awarded compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest.

JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. – Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 3331 of 2016 dismissing the appellants’ appeal while affirming the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal[1] by which the appellants’ claim was dismissed. The parties are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the claim petition.

[1] ‘MACT’

2. The widow, minor child and parents of the deceased Ikhbal are the appellants in the present proceedings. Ikhbal died in an accident on 10.06.2013 being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding in 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. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 are the owner, driver and insurer of the car respectively. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 contested the claim petition while respondent no. 1 remained ex-parte.

3. According to the appellants, while the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle and reached near ‘Mrala’ junction, a K.S.R.T.C. bus, which was going in front, stopped at the bus stop. The deceased attempted to overtake the bus and at that time the subject car driven by respondent no. 2 came from the opposite direction and hit at the motorcycle of the deceased on which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was an employee as U.D. Clerk in Registration Department and had monthly income of Rs. 21,456/-.

4. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 denied the involvement of the car in the accident. According to them, respondent no. 2 was driving the car carefully and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased because he attempted to overtake the parked K.S.R.T.C. bus. In the process, the motorcycle hit on the bus and the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to the hospital by respondent no. 2 who reached the spot soon after the accident. The car of respondent no. 2 did not hit the deceased’s motorcycle. The respondent no. 3 admitted the policy.

5. The appellants examined six witnesses before the MACT while the respondents examined two witnesses. Both the parties exhibited number of documents in their evidence. The MACT assessed the compensation to hold that the appellants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/-. However, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was involved in the accident. The said findings have been affirmed by the High Court.

6. Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that there is ample evidence demonstrating involvement of the car in the subject accident and the findings to the contrary is utterly perverse. It is argued that the MACT and the High Court as well have recorded the findings adverse to the appellants basing on conjectures and surmises and by complete misreading the evidence. It is vehemently argued that the statement of witnesses have to be read in conjunction with principle of res ipsa loquitur, which the courts below have failed. Learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal to award the sum assessed by the MACT.

7. Per contra, Mr. Atul Nanda, learned senior counsel for respondent no. 3 would submit that the courts below have correctly held that the subject car owned by respondent no. 1 was not involved in the accident. Referring to the statement of witnesses, learned senior counsel has argued that none of the witnesses have seen the car hitting the motorcycle driven by the deceased. It is lastly argued that both the courts below have recorded the findings after careful examination of the evidence which warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

8. Before proceeding to dwell on the merits of the matter we remind ourselves that the present is an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India wherein, ordinarily, this Court would not reappreciate the evidence. However, this Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656 has held that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily this Court will not engage itself in reappreciation of the evidence as such but can certainly examine the evidence on record to consider the challenge to the findings recorded by Tribunal or the High Court, being perverse or replete with error apparent on the face of the record and being manifestly wrong. This being the legal position, we proceed to examine the evidence on record to examine the correctness of the finding recorded by the courts below as to whether the subject car was involved in the accident or not.

9. It was the case of the appellants from the inception that the deceased was hit by the subject car which came driven from the opposite direction as a result of which he was thrown on the road and sustained fatal injuries. The final report (closure report) of FIR No. 342 of 2013 records that the damage occurred to the subject car is due to the skied motorcycle glide to the road and hit to the front bumper and grill of the car, which was coming at that time and the accident occurred for which the drivers of the bus or the car were not responsible. However, it clearly records that there was damage to the car on account of the accident.

10. PW-2 in his deposition stated that the accident was a result of collision between the car and the bike. This witness is the driver of the bus. He was sitting on the driver seat and after hearing the sound of the accident, he looked back and saw the deceased was lying on the road. Nearby people told him that the deceased was hit by the car due to over speeding. In cross-examination he denied that the car driver was not involved in the accident.

11. PW-3 is the Teashop owner at the place of occurrence. He says that he heard the sound of accident, and the mudguard of the car was detached. In cross-examination, he states that as the car hit, the wheel of the bike rotated. He denied the suggestion that the bike touched the bus and fell down or that he has not seen the offence.

12. PW-5 was the SHO of Karimkunnam Police Station who has prepared the Mahazar of the car, bus and the bike. In the Mahazar of the car, it was noted that the paint on the right side of the head light is lost, and scratches are seen here and there on the right side of the body. According to him, the grill of the car is dented, and parking light is broken.

13. PW-6 is an important witness who was presented as an eyewitness to the accident. He had seen the motorcycle overtaking the bus and at that time the car hit the motorcycle. The car forwarded a little and stopped and the injured was taken to the hospital in the same car which hit him. This witness has remained firm in the cross-examination.

14. RW-2 is respondent no. 2 as also the driver of the subject car. He says that the bike skied and fell in front of the car. He admits in cross-examination that when the motorcycle skied and reached in front of the car, the bus was 100 feet away and he stopped the car on the spot where the bike hit the car.

15. From the above evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that (I) the car had suffered damages; (II) the car driver admits that the bus was 100 feet away when the motorcycle hit the car; (III) PW-6, an eyewitness, has narrated the accident and (IV) PW-2, the driver of the bus also speaks about hearing the sound of the accident and nearby people telling him that the car had hit the bike.

16. The courts below have recorded the finding of noninvolvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness. In our considered view, 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. 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. In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible. The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front bumper is 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.

17. In the light of the evidence on record, we 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 insured with respondent no. 3. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the courts below and allow the claim petition to award compensation to the appellants at Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the payment, which shall be made within three months from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum.

18. The appeal is allowed accordingly in the above stated terms. The parties shall bear their own costs.

By sclaw

Related Post

Accident

Motor Accident Claims — Accurate Disability assessment — Supreme Court addressed the issue of compensation for a motor accident victim who sustained injuries to both hands requiring surgery and resulting in permanent disability — The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) initially awarded Rs.5,38,872/- as compensation, considering a 25% disability — The insurance company appealed, and the High Court reduced the compensation to Rs.4,74,072/-, adjusting the disability percentage to 20% — The Supreme Court upon reviewing the medical records and testimony of doctor, who certified a 50% disability, set aside the High Court’s judgment — It restored the Tribunal’s decision, which had assessed a 25% disability — The Court directed the insurance company to deposit the full compensation amount, as determined by the Tribunal — The appeal was thus allowed, emphasizing the importance of accurate disability assessment in determining fair compensation for accident victims.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw
Accident

Motor Accident Claims — Enhancement of Compensation — The claimant-appellant’s husband died in a motor accident involving an ambulance and a truck — The deceased was employed as a ‘Khalasi’ in the ambulance — The maintainability of the claim for compensation, the rash and negligent conduct of the truck driver, and the extent of compensation payable — The High Court awarded Rs. 8,30,000 as compensation, deducting Rs. 6,25,000 already paid by the employer — The Supreme Court modified the compensation to Rs. 10,06,900 with 7.5% interest — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation amount was modified.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw
Accident

Motor Accident Compensation — Contributory Negligence — The claimant and his wife were involved in a motorcycle accident with two tractors, resulting in the wife’s death and the claimant’s severe injuries — The main issues were rash and negligent driving, contributory negligence and insurance liability — The claimant argued for higher compensation due to the loss of income from their business and the misapplication of the multiplier by the Tribunal — The respondents contended that the claimant was also negligent and thus partly responsible for the accident — The Supreme Court revised the compensation to Rs. 11,25,000 from Rs. 1,01,250, acknowledging the error in the Tribunal’s application of the multiplier and contributory negligence — The Court found that the claimant’s act of overtaking was not rash or negligent and that the offending vehicle was driven negligently — The appeal was allowed, and the compensation was significantly increased, with the interest rate adjusted to 8%.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw