Evidence To Be Liberally Construed In Benevolent Legislations: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that in the case of benevolent legislations, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, evidence must be evaluated in a liberal manner, without insisting on an extreme form of 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities'. 

"It is the trite law that 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities' is the rule of evidence to be applied while querying proof of allegations involved in civil cases. When coming to benevolent legislations, the rule of evidence is nothing but 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities' and in such cases, the evidence shall be evaluated in a liberal manner without insisting for the extreme form of 'preponderance of probabilities and possibilities'", the Court observed. 

In this light, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that when a person who had been working as a cleaner in a lorry died, it wouldn't always be possible to adduce documentary evidence to prove his job as a cleaner, and in such circumstances, the available evidence ought to be liberally construed. 

"... in a case based on a benevolent legislation, the evidence available as discussed herein above cannot be eschewed to hold that the deceased was not the cleaner in the lorry at the time of accident on the ground that no documentary evidence in this regard had been let in", it was added. 

As per the factual background of the case, the deceased person, Najmal, was working in a lorry driven by the second respondent in the instant petition, as its cleaner. He was sitting in the cabin and giving directions to the driver to move the lorry in reverse, his head got jammed between a coconut tree and the lorry. He succumbed to his injuries. Thus, the claimant petitioners filed a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act on the principle of 'no fault'.

On the other hand, the insurer, New India Assurance Co Ltd which is the third respondent herein, denied the claim, and stated that since the policy covering the good carriage lorry was a 'liability only' policy, and since the deceased person had been a 'gratuitous passenger' in the lorry, it would not be covered under the policy. Dispute was also raised regarding the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.3,25,500/-. Two appeals were preferred from the award of the Tribunal - one by the insurer and the other by the original petitioners/claimants challenging the inadequacy of the amount. 

The claimants contended that since the deceased was aged 18 years (below 20 years) as per the schedule appended to Section 163A of the MV Act, 2/3rd of Rs.6,84,000/- had to be awarded along with Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate, which was the 'structured formula'. However, it was submitted by the claimants/appellants that the Tribunal had adopted the 'multiplier method' herein, whereby the compensation award was reduced.

It was further submitted that the first claimant and the father of the deceased had given categorical evidence to the extent that the deceased had been doing the job of cleaner at the time of accident and his evidence was not shaken during cross-examination. In this light, it was submitted that the Tribunal could not be faulted in the matter of fastening liability upon the company. It was further argued that even if it was conceded that the deceased was not the cleaner of the lorry at the time of accident, as per the insurance policy, Rs.75/- was collected towards premium under the head NFPP (Non-Fare Paying Passengers), thereby indicating that the company was indeed liable.

The respondent insurance company on the other hand (who is also the appellant in the other appeal), contended that no evidence adduced to prove that deceased was the cleaner of the lorry at the time of accident. It was further argued that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the company has no liability to indemnify the insured, since no premium was collected to cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger.

It was in this context that the Court remarked that the evidence ought to be evaluated in a liberal manner in case of benevolent legislations, and held that the deceased had indeed been working as cleaner in the lorry at the time of accident.

The contention raised by the insurer that the policy was that of 'liability only' was also discarded, as it became clear to the Court that the risk of the two employees were covered and premium for the said cover also was collected. However, the Court left open the question as to whether collection of premium under the head NFPP would also entitle payment of compensation by the company to the claimants, even when the status was that of a gratuitous passenger. 

The appellate Court thus ordered that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,60,500/- as total compensation at the rate of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization, and the insurance company was directed to deposit the same in equal proportion in the name of the claimants within 2 months from the date of the judgment.

Advocate KKM Sherif appeared on behalf of the appellant insurance company (the third respondent in the second appeal), while the respondents were represented by Advocates V. Binoy Ram, M.K. Ranjit, and Sajitha P. Soman. Advocate V. Binoy Ram appeared for the original petitioners/claimants, and the respondents were represented by Advocate Lal George. 

Case Title: Abdul Majeed & Anr v. P.V. Prajosh & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 473

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment