Summary
The Supreme Court declined to disturb concurrent findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court that the claimants had not proved the involvement of the alleged offending lorry in a fatal motorcycle accident. Although the standard is preponderance of probabilities, the identity of the vehicle must still be shown by cogent and reliable evidence, which was lacking here.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in law in holding that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in the accident.
- Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 with concurrent findings of fact on the evidence of the claimants' witnesses.
Provisions considered
- Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The insurer argued that a claim petition under this section requires proof of the occurrence of the accident, the involvement of the vehicle and its rash and negligent driving. The Court accepted that the standard is preponderance of probabilities but held that the claimants must still establish the identity of the vehicle by cogent and reliable evidence, which they had not done. (¶¶ 7, 8, 16, 19)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaRelying on Collector Singh v. L.M.L. Limited, the Court treated its jurisdiction as extraordinary and held that concurrent findings of fact are interfered with only in exceptional cases, such as perverse or wholly unsatisfactory appreciation of evidence; no such case was made out. (¶¶ 12, 15, 19)
Held
- Interference with concurrent findings of fact under Article 136 is permissible only in exceptional cases where the appreciation of evidence is wholly unsatisfactory or the conclusion is perverse. (¶ 12)
- The findings rejecting the claimants' witnesses were based on proper appreciation of evidence: the two family members who deposed had not seen the accident and relied on what the police told them, and the account of two other witnesses that the driver voluntarily confessed to them and disclosed both registration numbers was improbable and contradicted in cross-examination. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- In motor accident claims the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, and the absence of the vehicle's registration number in the FIR or first complaint is not by itself fatal; but the claimants must establish the specific identity of the vehicle or driver through cogent and reliable evidence. (¶ 16)
- The omission of the registration number had to be read with the other infirmities: the complaint did not identify the vehicle, the spot mahazar was drawn up several days later with no indication of its source, the Motor Vehicle Inspector found no damage to the lorry despite a collision that killed two persons, and the chargesheet followed recovery of the vehicle about one and a half months after the accident. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Sympathy for the families of the deceased cannot displace the requirement that liability under the Motor Vehicles Act be established by credible evidence. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeals dismissed; concurrent findings dismissing the claim petitions upheld; no order as to costs.