Summary
The High Court wrongly reversed a reasoned motor accident compensation award by applying an unduly strict standard of proof and rejecting an eyewitness for minor reasons. Negligence had to be assessed on a preponderance of probabilities from the evidence as a whole. The Supreme Court restored the Tribunal’s award of Rs.48,33,235 with interest and its apportionment, while declining enhancement.
Issues
- Whether omission of an eyewitness from the criminal charge-sheet, non-examination of the pillion rider and the site plan justified rejecting the motor accident claim.
- Whether the claimants could seek enhanced compensation in the present appeal.
Held
- Motor accident claims require a holistic assessment on a preponderance of probabilities. The criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not govern the determination of negligence. The FIR and charge-sheet could be considered with the other evidence irrespective of the unknown outcome of the criminal proceedings. (¶ 20–26)
- An eyewitness was not disqualified because the police had not named him in the charge-sheet. The respondents had a fair opportunity to cross-examine him and did not discredit his account; his inability to state the pillion rider’s age did not justify discarding it. (¶ 27–30)
- Non-examination of the supposedly best eyewitness was not fatal where the existing evidence sufficiently established the accident and negligence. The site plan could not be read in isolation to attribute negligence to the deceased when its precise location markings were neither explained nor proved by a competent witness. (¶ 31–34)
- The claimants had not challenged rejection of their enhancement appeal, whose limited income-tax grievance was itself unsustainable under Pranay Sethi. They could not enlarge the scope of this appeal; the Tribunal’s award and family apportionment were restored. (¶ 35–37)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and Tribunal’s award dated 14 December 2016 restored. No order as to costs.