Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the claimants, Smt. Arathy and Smt. Mangalamma, against the judgment and award dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & MACT, Maddur, in MVC No.142/2008, dismissing their claim petition for compensation for the death of Umesha in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.01.2008 at about 10 p.m. while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-11-R-877 on Bengaluru-Mysuru Road, near 'Fun Fort'. The accident was alleged to have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a car bearing No.KA-03-A-1545. The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the car in the accident. The High Court noted that the Investigating Officer, who had investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the car, was not examined by either party. The court held that the Investigating Officer was the best person to speak about the involvement of the car, and the insurance company, which had the burden to disprove the claim, failed to examine him. An adverse inference was drawn against the insurance company for withholding this material witness. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence, including the examination of the Investigating Officer, and to dispose of the claim petition afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Adverse Inference - Non-Examination of Investigating Officer - Section 173(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending car in the accident. However, the High Court held that the Investigating Officer, who had investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the car, was the best person to speak about the involvement of the car. The insurance company, which had the burden to disprove the claim, failed to examine the Investigating Officer. An adverse inference was drawn against the insurance company for withholding this material witness. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending car in the accident, when the Investigating Officer was not examined and the insurance company failed to produce material evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 18.11.2010 passed in MVC No.142/2008 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is directed to permit the parties to adduce additional evidence, including the examination of the Investigating Officer, and to dispose of the claim petition afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Adverse Inference
- Non-Examination of Investigating Officer
- Section 173(1) MV Act
- Burden of Proof
- Involvement of Vehicle
