Bombay High Court Hears First Appeal Against Dismissal of Motor Accident Claim Petition by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Tribunal Dismissed Claim Petition No. 10 of 2017 on Ground That Deceased Scooterist Was Solely Responsible for Collision with Tipper Truck, Without Determining Compensation Quantum.

First appeal against the judgment and award dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 10 of 2017, dismissing a claim for compensation for the death of John Jacob in a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant, mother of the deceased, sought to set aside the dismissal and obtain compensation for the death of John Jacob due to alleged rash and negligent driving of the tipper truck by respondent no.1.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the claimants failed to establish negligence of the truck driver; the appellant challenged that finding and the failure to decide the compensation quantum.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed Claim Petition No. 10 of 2017 on 25.02.2021, holding that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident and that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the truck driver; no compensation amount was determined.

Whether the Tribunal erred in not deciding the issue of compensation quantum along with the issue of rashness and negligence. Whether the evidence on record established negligence of the tipper truck driver or contributory negligence of the deceased scooterist. Whether non-examination of the truck driver by the insurance company warranted an adverse inference against the respondents. Whether the Tribunal properly appreciated the eye-witness testimonies of AW4 and AW5 and the evidence of the investigating officer AW3.

Appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to give sufficient credence to the eye witnesses Sanjay Patkar (AW4) and Aleluia Braganza (AW5), and failed to draw adverse inference from the truck driver's non-examination. The appellant also argued that the truck is heavier and bigger than a Dio scooter, and that the Tribunal was not justified in relying almost entirely on PSI Nitin Halarnkar (AW3), who was not an eyewitness and did not disclose investigation details. The appellant alternatively submitted contributory negligence of the truck driver. Respondent No.3 submitted that the truck driver was not responsible for the accident; the deceased was driving the scooter rashly and hit the truck's rear tyre while overtaking. Respondent also argued that there was no legal evidence about John's employment and salary details, and that conveyance and uniform allowance could never be considered for determining dependency compensation.

Motor Accident Claims Tribunals must decide all issues together, including the quantum of compensation, even when negligence is not established. The evidence of an investigating officer who is not an eyewitness is not conclusive on the question of negligence but remains relevant for documenting the scene of accident through panchanama and sketch. Non-examination of the driver may give rise to an adverse inference. Eye-witness testimony must be carefully weighed against documentary evidence such as the scene sketch, especially when witnesses give contradictory versions.

The Tribunal has held that the claimants failed to establish that the accident in which John Jacob died was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of Babaji, the driver of the tipper truck bearing registration no. GA-05-T-6112. The approach of the Tribunal in not deciding all the issues together is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimlesh and Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. and Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore V/s. State of Karnataka. The truck driver did not step into the witness box. The Insurance company did not seek any summons to examine the truck driver. The Tribunal has not bothered to draw any inferences from this circumstance. The scene of the accident sketch does not indicate the point of impact. The sketch also does not indicate the speed breaker though, one of the witnesses referred to the speed breaker at or near the scene of the accident. But the sketch shows break or skid marks of the scooter.

Claim Petition No. 10 of 2017 was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on 25.02.2021. First Appeal No. 49 of 2022 was filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The appeal was reserved on 9 June 2023 and pronounced on 12 June 2023.