Summary
The Supreme Court restored a motor accident compensation award that the High Court had set aside by a cryptic order on the ground that involvement of the offending truck was not proved. It held that a first appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires full appraisal of the evidence, that claimants need prove the vehicle's involvement only on a preponderance of probability, and that an insurer alleging collusion must prove it.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, could reverse a detailed award by a summary order without discussing the evidence.
- Whether the claimants proved the involvement of the offending truck in the accident.
- Whether the insurer discharged its burden of proving its plea of collusion and its plea on the age of the deceased.
Provisions considered
- Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988An appeal under Section 173 is in the nature of a first appeal, like Section 96 CPC; the High Court must decide all issues of fact and law after appreciating the entire evidence, especially when reversing a reasoned award. The summary order ignoring the FIR, final report, seizure memo and the Tribunal's findings was held unsustainable. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Section 96, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Used as the analogy for the nature and scope of an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (¶ 17)
- Section 133, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988A notice under Section 133 was issued to the truck owner and the truck was seized after the reopened investigation; this was among the circumstances supporting the vehicle's involvement. (¶¶ 16, 21)
Held
- An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is essentially a first appeal like Section 96 CPC, and the High Court is obliged to marshal the oral and documentary evidence and decide all issues of fact and law; this applies with greater force when it proposes to reverse a well-reasoned award. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Given the lapse of six years since the 2018 accident, the Court examined the evidence itself rather than remanding the matter. (¶ 18)
- Where the accident or the involvement of a vehicle is disputed in a claim case, the claimant need prove it only on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, following Sajeena Ikhbal v. Mini Babu George and Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation. (¶¶ 20, 23)
- The truck's involvement was proved on that standard: a prompt FIR recording the time and place and an unknown truck hitting the car from behind, an explained delay, the widow's application naming eyewitnesses, the reopened investigation leading to seizure of the truck and a charge-sheet against its driver, and an eyewitness who stood firm in cross-examination. (¶¶ 21, 24)
- Once the claimants discharge the initial onus, an insurer pleading collusion between the claimants and the vehicle's driver or owner must prove it; a bare assertion is not enough, particularly where it made no complaint to higher police authorities or the court and there was no reason for the police to falsely implicate the vehicle. (¶¶ 19, 22, 23)
- The insurer's plea that a lower multiplier should apply because the deceased was 58 failed, as it led no evidence of that age, while the claimants pleaded and proved the age of 55 relied on by the Tribunal. (¶¶ 25, 26)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment dated 24.08.2023 set aside and the Tribunal's award of Rs. 50,41,289 dated 25.03.2021 restored; no order as to costs.