MV Act | Tribunal's Approach Insensitive, Found Small Inconsistencies To Throw Out Claim: Gujarat HC Quashes Order Rejecting Compensation

While quashing an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) which had dismissed a claim petition, the Gujarat High Court observed that it was unfortunate that instead of "taking a holistic view" the tribunal had sought to fund minor inconsistencies to throw out the claimant's plea for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 

In doing so the court observed that the tribunal had adopted an "insensitive approach" by taking a hyper-technical view, when it should have tried to grant fair compensation to the victim of road accident. 

Justice J C Doshi in its order observed, "It is very unfortunate that the learned Tribunal instead of taking holistic view, tried to find out smaller inconsistency in the evidence to throw out the claim filed u/s 166 of the MV Act. The learned Tribunal instead of believing on the testimony of the eye witness and police records, believed the deposition of two Medical Officers and more particularly, case history recorded by the Medical Officer given by some third party about the alleged road accident and believed that since according to them, the incident took place due to four wheeler, involvement of the motorcycle in the road accident is doubtful and rather it is implanted".

The court said that the Tribunal's approach could have been considered wise if  it was deciding the criminal case, whereby the nature of evidence must be beyond reasonable doubt.

It said that the Tribunal's approach should have been in consonance with section 167 of the MV Act "to grant just and fair compensation to the victim of the road accident"; however it had "taken hyper-technical view, which is totally insensitive".

The court further emphasized as to why adopting a sensitive approach is "crucial" for the tribunal. It said that the tribunal plays a "key and vital role in ensuring not only justice to the victim of the motor accident, but also to determine just and fair compensation".

It said that the tribunal is "expected to have empathy and has to prevent subsequent trauma by taking sensitive approach feeling pain of the victim of the road accident". 

This is because the victim of the road accident and their family often dealt with physical and emotional trauma and empathetic approach can provide them sense of support and understanding, which may nurse the pain of the victim and put them back to the pre-accident stage at least.

"Moreover, compensating approach can prevent effect of emotional stress that might arise from the adversarial legal process. The MACT entrusting summary jurisdiction to decide the issue keeping in mind the principle of paying just and fair compensation u/s 168 of the MV Act. Ultimately, goal of the Tribunal is to deliver justice,” the court added.

The observations were made in an appeal filed by the claimants against the tribunal's decision. The claim arose after the occurrence of an accident on August, 2019 wherein the deceased was allegedly struck by a two-wheeler driven in rash, reckless and negligent manner resulting in gross injuries after which he succumbed to death. It was stated that the deceased was doing farming on his own farm and agricultural labour through which he used to earn Rs 25,000 and was of young age, healthy and capable of earning for his family in future.

The claim petition sought compensation of Rs. 30,00,000; however the tribunal dismissed the claim noting some inconsistency.

The Advocate for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in observing that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and further argued that the driver and owner admitted his involvement in the written statement and the supporting evidence including the spot panchnama, chargesheet and testimony of the claimant (the widow of the deceased) who was also the witness of the incident. The Counsel thereafter contended that in motor accident claims, claimants are not required to lead evidence in form of proving it beyond reasonable doubt;leading evidence in nature of preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. 

He claimed that Tribunal had taken strange approach to dismiss the claim petition noting some minor inconsistency, which does not go to the root of the case.

The Counsel for the Defendants however referred to the deposition of the Medical Officer to contend that the deceased was hit by an unknown for-wheeler and the FIR was filed after 8 days emphasizing that the delay in filing of the FIR and yet the vehicle was found on the road having blood stain. She submitted that the claimant hatched conspiracy with the original opponent Nos.1 and 2 and implanted the vehicle and then filed the claim petition. The Counsel further submit that dubious proceedings are filed by the claimant and therefore Tribunal has rightly passed the order.

The Court then noted the observation of the Tribunal wherein, the testimony of eyewitness Anishaben who was asked a specific question by the insurance company about non involvement of the motorcycle in the road accident, but the witness has categorically denied it . The high court noted that in the FIR copy  a clear allegation or rash and negligent driving was levelled against the accused.

"All these evidence were overwhelming and they sufficient to prove that on the fateful day, the deceased was hit by the motorcyclist. The driver-cum-owner who filed written statement at Exh.15 in para 9 thereof accepted the occurrence of the accident," it noted. It thereafter referred to Supreme Court's decision in ICICI Lombard General InsuranceCo.Ltd. Versus Rajani Sahoo, where the apex court had said that court should take holistic view of the evidence and has to report the police for proving the case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. 

The high court noted that the insurance company, who relied upon the evidence of the Medical Officer from Gokul Hospital and Synergy Hospital, did not lead evidence to establish its contention. It said that as per the Evidence Act first the insurance company is required to enter into the witness box to establish its contention and then can lead necessary evidence in support of its contention.

"I failed to understand that how this kind of approach has been taken by the learned Tribunal, though there is sufficient evidence placed on record. Filing of the FIR and charge sheet have not been challenged by either driver and owner of the offending vehicle nor the insurance company," the court said. 

It thereafter quashed the Tribunal's order and restored the claim petition to its original proceedings. It directed the tribunal to issue notice to the claimant and respondent to decide the petition on merits “without being influenced by its earlier order, as early as possible.” The Court further granted liberty to both the parties to lead  fresh evidence and to remain present before the Tribunal on March 17.

Case Title: Anishaben Sharifbhai Solanki & Ors. vs Sachinbhai Bharatbhai Suvagiya & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order