Rule Of Evidence To Prove Charges In A Criminal Trial Cannot Be Used While Deciding Motor Accident Compensation Claims: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application seeking motor accident compensation. 

Such an application has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial, the bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed.

The court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against a judgment of Bombay High Court which had set aside an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.8,90,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. The bench noted that the High Court set aside the award on the ground that neither the owner of the offending car nor the Insurance Company has examined the driver to prove that the offending car was not involved in the accident. Disapproving this approach, the bench noted the evidence on record, and observed:

"We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable."

The court also observed that the fact that wife of the deceased did not implead daughters is not really of any consequence. "If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as the amount of compensation payable by the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the mother has not impleaded, the daughters as the claimants. It is not really of any consequence as held by the High Court.", the court observed.

Though the court noted that the claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal before the High Court, it observed that they are are entitled to enhanced compensation in view of the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the bench enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,63,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a.

Case details

Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade  vs ICICI Lambord Issurance Company Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666 | SLP (C) 21077 of 2019 | 10 August 2022 | Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath

Headnotes

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ; Section 166 - Rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 - It has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. (Para 10)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ; Section 166 - If the daughters of the deceased have not been impleaded as claimants, it is immaterial as the amount of compensation payable by the tortfeasor will not get enhanced because of the daughters being party to the claim application. It is since the daughters are married, the mother has not impleaded, the daughters as the claimants. It is not really of any consequence. (Para 11)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ; Section 166 - The compensation under the head on account of loss of love and affection is not permissible but compensation on account of spousal consortium for wife and for the parental consortium for children is admissible - Referred to United India Insurance Company Limited v. Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. (Para 13)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment