Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mrs. Agustha D' Souza Cardozo, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 02.10.2001. She was travelling in a Tata Sumo from Goa to Vailankanni when a truck bearing no. KA-25/A-295, driven by respondent no.1 and owned by respondent no.2, was driven in a fast, rash, and negligent manner and dashed against the Tata Sumo. The driver of the Tata Sumo lost control and hit the roadside gutter, causing the appellant's right hand to fracture and other injuries. The appellant claimed that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the truck driver. The respondent no.3 (insurance company) denied the claim, alleging that the Tata Sumo driver was negligent. The Tribunal framed issues and after considering evidence, concluded that the claimant failed to establish rash and negligence on the part of the truck driver and rejected the claim. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence on record, including the fact that respondent nos.1 and 2 did not file written statements and did not contest the claim. The respondent no.3's counsel supported the Tribunal's decision. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Tribunal's finding was perverse as it ignored the material on record, including the fact that the truck driver did not appear to contest the claim. The Court held that the Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the truck driver and owner for not contesting. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's award, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the claim on merits, including assessment of compensation.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Rash and Negligent Driving - Appreciation of Evidence - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The claimant alleged that the truck driver drove rashly and negligently, causing accident. The Tribunal dismissed claim holding failure to prove negligence. On appeal, the High Court found that the Tribunal ignored evidence of the truck driver's negligence and the fact that the truck driver did not contest the claim. Held that the Tribunal's finding was perverse and set aside, allowing the appeal (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimant failed to establish rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the truck.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 17.05.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, at Margao, in Claim Petition No. 73 of 2004 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the claim on merits, including assessment of compensation, in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Rash and Negligent Driving
- Appreciation of Evidence
- Burden of Proof
