Chhattisgarh High Court rejected an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act where the appellant’s contention was that the respondent’s account leads to several suspicions since the FIR was lodged at a much-belated stage, i.e., after about 52 days from the date of accident. The court observed that ‘preponderance of probability’ has to be applied while the claim application under the Motor Vehicle Act. Only because the statement of eye witness was recorded at a belated stage or eye witness having not disclosed this fact to any other person till the statement was recorded before police authorities cannot be a ground to disbelieve his version.
Brief Facts:
It is a case where an accident occurred on 29.08.2020 and as a result of the said accident the deceased Narsingh Mandavi aged around 30 years succumbed to the injuries suffered from the said accident. It was said that the deceased was traveling on his motor cycle and when he had halted the motor cycle and was answering the call of the nature, a rash and negligent bolero jeep came and dashed the deceased causing grievous injuries resulting in his death later on 31.08.2020. The widow and the daughter of deceased had filed the claim application under Section 166. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record had allowed the same by awarding a compensation of Rs. 54,68,200/-. While passing the impugned award the tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 4% per annum and with penal clause that in case if the amount is not paid within a period of two months, then the amount beyond a period of two months shall carry interest at the rate of 6% till it’s actually paid.
Contention of the Appellant:
The appellant while assailing the impugned award questioned, firstly, the involvement of vehicle. Secondly, the liability of the insurance company and thirdly, the quantum of compensation awarded. As regards the involvement of a vehicle is concerned, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that it is a case where perusal of the entire facts leads to much suspicions, as regards the occurrence of the accident itself by the offending vehicle. According to the counsel for the appellant it is a case where accident is said to have occurred on 29.08.2020 and the deceased having died on 31.08.2020 the FIR was lodged at a much belated stage on 20.10.2020 i.e., after about 52 days from the date of accident. It is the further contention of the appellant that even the statement of the alleged eye witness Madvi Kosa AW-2 also gives rise to many suspicions. As regards the occurrence of accident and also as regards his having witnessed the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company referred to his statement so far as his ignorance to the vehicle number at the time of accident and that he was subsequently informed by the Police Authorities as regards the vehicle number is concerned. Further, according to the appellant, the suspicion becomes stronger so far as deposition and statement of the eye witness Madvi Kosa AW-2 for the simple reason in spite of being an eye witness, he had not disclosed the involvement of the offending vehicle to any person till the FIR was lodged for the first time on 14.10.2020.
Observation of the Court:
The judges relied on the case of Sunita and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another AIR 2019 SC 994, and observed that it is a settled position of law that in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly, when the claim application arising out of an accident is to be decided, the standard of proof required is not of the same standard which is required while proving of a criminal case. It is the principles of ‘preponderance of probability’ that has to be applied while the claim application under the Motor Vehicle Act. The registration of FIR, the prosecution of the driver of the offending vehicle, subsequent filing of the charge-sheet are all strong materials to establish the accident and death of the deceased person from the said accident. In addition, there is also this evidence of AW-2 who claims himself an eye witness of the said incidence. Only because the statement of eye witness was recorded at a belated stage or eye witness having not disclosed this fact to any other person till the statement was recorded before police authorities cannot be a ground to disbelieve his version for the reason that it could be also a case where AW-2 must have disclosed it to the family members but because of the atmosphere prevailing in the family at that point of time when the whole family must be grieving on the death of the deceased. The recording of a statement or the disclosure of facts to the police officer at a later stage under the prevailing circumstances cannot be ruled out. More particularly, taking note of the place of incidence and place of residence of the claimants and said eye witness.
In addition to this, the court also rejected the appellant’s claim for a revised compensation.
Decision of the Court:
The appeal was rejected.
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Gangi Mandavi and 3 others
Coram: Justice P. Sam Koshy
Citation/Case No.: MAC No. 906 of 2022
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. R. N. Pusty
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar (for R1 AND R2) and Ms. Ranjana Tiwari (for R3 and R4)
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
0 Comments