MV Act | Mere Assertion By Witness That Vehicle Was Being Driven Rashly Not Conclusive, Must Emerge From Evidence: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has recently held that a mere assertion by a witness that a particular vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently cannot be the last word based on which a Court will draw its conclusions of composite negligence in a motor vehicle accident case.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary held that the courts must piece together the evidence and draw an inference on the manner of an accident. The Bench remarked,

"Different factors to be considered are the speed of vehicle, the type of vehicle, whether it was loaded or not, road conditions, the place of occurrence i.e. whether it was a high way or a crowded area, the side of road on which the accident took place etc. Inquiry under M. V. Act, being civil and summary in nature, the onus of proof is lighter and based on preponderance of probability than that in criminal cases."

Appeals were preferred against the judgment of the lower Court awarding compensation. It is the claimant's case; the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident with a truck. It is also claimed that both vehicles were being driven rashly and negligently.

The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants by recording a finding of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles in equal share.

The main question that was raised in these appeals was whether the findings of the Tribunal regarding composite negligence are sustainable because of the inconsistent evidence on the point? Further, whether there was any breach in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy to give the insurance company the right of recovery?

The Court held that the inference of whether a vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently is an inference that has to be drawn by the Courts based on different particulars that come up regarding the manner of accident that emerges based on the evidence on record, both oral and documentary.

The Court referred to the case of Premalal v. Devarajan, where it was held.

"But it is not correct to state that even the factum that the first and the second defendants were charged under Sections 454 and 380 IPC and they were convicted on those charges could not be admitted. The order of the criminal Court is, in my opinion, clearly admissible to prove the conviction of the first defendant and the second defendant and that is the only point which the plaintiff had to establish in this case."

The Court noted that the only inescapable conclusion that can be drawn regarding the manner of the accident is that it took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. There is no room for drawing any other conclusion regarding the factum of an accident. Therefore, it found the findings of the Tribunal of composite negligence unsustainable in law and held that owner of the passenger vehicle shall be principally liable to pay the compensation.

Further, it noted that there is nothing in support of the plea of the Insurance Company regarding breach of terms of the insurance policy. 

Case Title: M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi v. Smt. Kalwati Devi & Ors and other connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 34

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order