Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, Vinodray Teraiya, who died in a road accident on 17-01-2015. The claimants alleged that the deceased was riding his motorcycle on the left side of the road when a Chhakdo rickshaw, driven rashly and negligently, came from the opposite direction and hit him. The deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to them during treatment. A complaint was lodged, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the rickshaw. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sp.), Rajkot, in MACP No.619 of 2015, awarded compensation to the claimants. The insurance company, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., appealed against the award, primarily challenging the finding that the rickshaw was involved in the accident. The appellant argued that the FIR was filed after a delay of 42 days, the vehicle number was not mentioned in the FIR, and the Tribunal relied on the inadmissible confessional statement of the driver made before the police. The appellant also pointed out that the mudguard allegedly found at the scene was not sent for forensic analysis, and no mobile location data was collected. The High Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel and noting that the respondents were served but unrepresented, examined the evidence. The Court observed that the claimant (widow) was examined as Exhibit 53 and admitted that the mudguard was not sent to FSL and no mobile location data was collected. However, the Court noted that the Tribunal had considered the oral evidence of the claimant, the FIR, and the charge-sheet, and had concluded that the rickshaw was involved. The High Court held that in claim petitions, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and were not perverse. The Court also noted that the delay in FIR and the absence of vehicle number in the FIR were not fatal, as the involvement could be established by other evidence. The Court further held that even if the confessional statement was inadmissible, there was other evidence to support the claim. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's award.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Involvement of Vehicle - Burden of Proof - The claimant must prove the involvement of the offending vehicle on a preponderance of probabilities; strict proof akin to criminal trial is not required. The Tribunal may rely on oral evidence, FIR, and other circumstances to conclude involvement. (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Accident Claims - Delay in FIR - Effect - Delay in lodging FIR, by itself, does not discredit the claim if the involvement of the vehicle is otherwise established. The Tribunal can consider the explanation for delay and the overall evidence. (Paras 3-5) C) Motor Accident Claims - Confessional Statement - Admissibility - A confessional statement made before the police is inadmissible in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 25. However, the Tribunal may still rely on other independent evidence to establish involvement. (Para 4) D) Motor Accident Claims - Appreciation of Evidence - Standard of Proof - In claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal's findings based on evidence cannot be interfered with unless perverse. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the Chhakdo rickshaw was involved in the accident and in awarding compensation, despite the alleged delay in filing the FIR, absence of vehicle number in the FIR, and reliance on inadmissible evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sp.), Rajkot, dated 27.12.2021 in MACP No.619 of 2015.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Burden of Proof
- Involvement of Vehicle
- Delay in FIR
- Confessional Statement
- Appreciation of Evidence
