Motor Accident Claims Must Be Backed By Evidence, Vehicles Not Involved In Accident Cannot Be Asked To Pay Compensation: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, by which it has directed the 23rd Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,57,732/- to the claimant, on the ground that it was not proved before the Tribunal that a vehicle belonging to 23rd Battalion of SSB was involved in the...
The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, by which it has directed the 23rd Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,57,732/- to the claimant, on the ground that it was not proved before the Tribunal that a vehicle belonging to 23rd Battalion of SSB was involved in the accident where the deceased lost his life.
The single judge bench comprising Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed:
“…..It is true that the provisions regarding payment of compensation to motor vehicle accidents are beneficial legislations. Law of evidence is not strictly applicable in such cases. But that does not mean that without any evidence, claim petitions should be allowed. It must be ascertained first as to which vehicle had caused the accident and after that the owner of the said vehicle shall be asked to pay the compensation. A vehicle not involved in a motor accident cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to a victim of motor vehicle accident.”
As per the facts of the case, on November 19, 2009 at about 7 pm, the deceased was s riding a bicycle at Bagpuri Tiniali Chowk. It was alleged that a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) vehicle hit the deceased from behind, as a result of which, he died on the spot.
A claim petition seeking compensation was filed by the wife of the deceased. The claimant stated in her evidence that one SSB vehicle had caused the accident leading to the death of her husband. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang (Tribunal), she examined two other witnesses.
One of the witnesses stated in his evidence that he has a grocery shop near the place of occurrence. He further stated that one SSB vehicle which was going towards Bhergaon in a very high speed, had hit the bicycle of the deceased. He claimed to be an eye witness to the said occurrence. On the other hand, another witness stated that at the relevant time of occurrence, he was in his home and he was informed by the first witness about the said accident.
After examining the evidence, the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 14,57,732/- as compensation.
Aggrieved by the mentioned judgment and award, the appellants filed the present appeal before the High Court taking a ground that no vehicle of 23rd Battalion of SSB stationed at Bhairabkunda was involved in the said accident dated November 19, 2009.
The Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that all SSB vehicles have a particular colour and that colour is used by some private vehicles also. It was further argued that the place where the accident took place is outside the jurisdiction of 23rd Battalion of SSB and therefore, no vehicle belonging to that Battalion is allowed to go outside the jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent submitted that since death of the deceased in the accident is an admitted fact, the Tribunal has correctly allowed the claim petition because under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disability in respect of which a claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or fault of the owner of the vehicle concerned.
The Court noted that in the written statement filed by the appellants, it was claimed that 23rd Battalion of SSB has jurisdiction from Bhairabkunda to Lalpool only. It was further claimed that no vehicle belonging to this Battalion goes to the place of occurrence which is outside its jurisdiction.
“In this case, there is no evidence at all to hold that an SSB vehicle belonging to 23rd Battalion of SSB was involved in the said accident wherein the husband of the claimant lost his life. The evidence of the eye witness Dejit Rabha is also shaky because in his cross-examination he has stated that in the winter afternoon the light was low but faces of persons could be identified in that condition. He said that he identified the vehicle to be an SSB vehicle after seeing its hood,” the Court observed.
It was further observed by the Court that it is not proved that a vehicle belonging to 23rd Battalion of SSB was involved in the accident where the deceased lost his life. Therefore, the Court held that 23rd Battalion of SSB cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 80
Case Title: Union of India & 2 Ors. v. Smti. Ansumi Baro
Case No.: MAC App./521/2019