Rigid Constraints Of Formal Pleadings Need Not Be Strictly Adhered To In A Claim Plea Under Motor Vehicles Act: J&K High Court

A bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani clarified that it is not mandatory for a claimant to explicitly enumerate all the details in the petition, hence allowing for a more flexible approach in presenting the case.

The observations came while hearing an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby a challenge had been thrown by the appellant to an award passed by the MACT Kishtwar in terms of which the claim petition of the respondent had been allowed.

The case originated from a claim petition filed the respondent, seeking compensation for grievous injuries sustained in a vehicular accident on 15.04.2013. The accident occurred in District Kishtwar, and the claimant attributed the injuries to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle's owner and driver.

Responding to the claim, the insurance company, the appellant, raised objections, contending violations of the Motor Vehicles Act, including overloading and lack of a valid route permit. The MACT Tribunal framed crucial issues, addressing the cause of the accident, validity of the driver's license, violation of driving norms, and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation.

During the proceedings, the claimant presented witnesses, while the appellant, including the insurance company, did not produce any evidence. The Tribunal ultimately held the insurance company liable based on the vehicle being insured with them.

In the appeal before the High Court, the insurance company contested the Tribunal's decision on multiple grounds. It argued that the accident resulted from an "Act of God" (Vis Major), as evidenced by the claimant's admission of a stone boulder falling on the vehicle, making it an unforeseen event beyond human control.

Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Wani critically examined the plea of an "Act of God" and emphasized that while pleadings and proof are distinct, the defense of an unforeseen event should have been raised by the owner or driver, not the insurance company.

“Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the insurance company/appellant herein did not plead the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, yet law is settled that such a plea that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver could only be taken either by the owner of the vehicle or by the driver of the vehicle and not by the Insurance Company”, the bench recorded.

Clarifying that the strict rules of pleadings do not apply to Motor Vehicles Act claims the bench \asserted that the claimant's version needs to be considered on the preponderance of probabilities.

“..In law, pleadings and proof are distinct and different from each other and in a claim petition filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, the strict rules of pleadings are not applicable suggesting that it is not imperative and necessary for a claimant to plead specifically all the facts in the claim petition”, the bench recorded.

Pointing towards the available record the bench noted the Respondent/ Claimant had explicitly asserted in the proceedings that he suffered severe injuries while inside the implicated vehicle and these injuries were a consequence of the driver's rash and negligent behaviour, leading to a collision with a stone boulder. This specific plea was substantiated during the claimant's testimony and reinforced by the consistent accounts of other witnesses, the bench underscored.

In light of these observations the court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Safder Ali

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 305

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment