Summary
In a motor accident death claim dismissed on a finding that the insured car was not involved, the Supreme Court held that finding perverse: the eyewitness could not be rejected merely because the police had not recorded his statement, and the evidence, judged on preponderance of probability, showed the car's involvement. The compensation assessed by the Tribunal was awarded.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court, in an appeal under Article 136, may examine the evidence where the concurrent finding of non-involvement of the vehicle is challenged as perverse.
- Whether the Tribunal and High Court were right in holding that the insured car was not involved in the accident.
- Whether a trustworthy eyewitness in a motor accident claim can be disbelieved only because the police did not record his statement during investigation.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaThe Court noted that it ordinarily does not reappreciate evidence under Article 136, but may examine the record where findings of the Tribunal or High Court are challenged as perverse, manifestly wrong or vitiated by error apparent on the record, and proceeded to do so. (¶ 8)
Held
- In an appeal under Article 136 the Court will not ordinarily reappreciate evidence, but it can examine the evidence to test whether findings of the Tribunal or High Court are perverse or manifestly wrong. (¶ 8)
- A witness who is otherwise trustworthy cannot be disbelieved in a motor accident claim solely because the police did not record his statement during investigation. (¶ 16)
- Motor accident claims are decided on preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Here the damage to the front of the car recorded in the mahazar, the closure report noting damage to the car, the car driver's own admission that the motorcycle struck the car when the bus was 100 feet away, and the testimony of the eyewitness and the bus driver permitted only one finding: the car was involved. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The concurrent finding of non-involvement, reached by ignoring this evidence, was perverse and was set aside; the deceased was held to have died in an accident involving the car insured with the third respondent. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the Tribunal and High Court set aside; claim petition allowed with compensation of Rs. 46,31,496 at 9% interest from the date of the claim petition, payable within three months, failing which interest at 12% per annum; parties to bear their own costs.