Appeal against Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal award dismissed. Court held that standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. Facts proved deceased was hit by mentioned motorcycle despite delay in complaint.
Appeal dismissed; original Judgment and Award dated 09.04.2012 confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:9572 MFA No. 23520 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23520/2012(MV-D)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHVAPUR, HUBLI.
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAYAWANT KAMBLE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R6 AND R7; R8 IS SERVED; R2 TO R5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988, PRAYING TO BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.04.2012 PASSED IN MVC 287/2009 BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND M.A.C.T., GADAG.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the insurance Company challenging the Judgment and Award passed in MVC No.287/2009 dated 09.04.2012 by the District Judge and M.A.C.T, Gadag, on the ground that the motor-cycle No.KA-26/J-6174 is falsely implicated into the case.
wife, children and parents of deceased who died in a road traffic accident that took place on 16.09.2009 as a result of deceased being hit by motor-cycle. The deceased was admitted to the hospital, but later succumbed to the injuries.
the motor-cycle No.KA-26/J-6174 is falsely implicated into the case. The accident is caused on 16.09.2009 and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 27.09.2009 and on the next day, complaint was lodged before the Police on 28.09.2009. Therefore, in the complaint, mentioning of number of motor-cycle is false just to make a claim against the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the offending vehicle - motor-cycle is falsely implicated. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
he sustained injuries. Therefore, he was admitted to the hospital. This statement-Ex.R2 is recorded on the next day of the accident on 17.09.2009 and from this Ex.R2, it is proved that the deceased had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident as he was it by a vehicle. Thus, the factum of accident and injuries sustained by the claimant
are proved. Ex.R1 is the letter issued by the Police to the doctor regarding the information stating that the deceased met with an accident and he was admitted in the hospital for treatment. Therefore, it is proved that the deceased met with an accident as he was hit by vehicle.
hospital. As the family members were busy in attending the deceased for providing medical treatment to him and struggling for the survival of the deceased, it could not be possible for the complainant or other family members to lodge a complaint before the Police. It is paramount duty on the part of the family members of the deceased to attend the deceased for providing medical treatment for the survival of the deceased rather than going to police station and lodging a complaint. It cannot be expected that a complaint is lodged before the Police immediately in each and every case of accident as the primary attention has to be given for providing medical treatment to the injured/deceased. This is normal human conduct that medical treatment shall be given to the injured at the first instance. Therefore, the delay of 12 days from the date of the accident, in lodging the complaint has to be considered based on the principle of law laid down in RAVI vs. BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS [(2011) 4 SCC 693)].
lodging of complaint before the Police is fatal to the claim petition. But whereas on the next day morning, i.e. on 17.09.2009, the deceased has given a statement before the Police that he met with an accident as he was hit by a vehicle. Through this evidence, it is proved that there is a road traffic accident and deceased sustained injuries and died. On the next day of the death of the deceased, his cousin has lodged the complaint before the Police by stating the number of motor-cycle. The complainant is also eye-witness to the accident as he was going along with the deceased by the left side of the road. Therefore, as discussed above, the paramount thing is to give medical treatment to the injured and giving attention to him for his survival. Hence, there might be delay in lodging the complaint as it is quite natural conduct of human being considering the facts and circumstances referred in the present case. But complaint is lodged on 28.09.2000 on the next day of the death of the deceased. The Investigating Officer after conducting the
investigation, filed a charge sheet against the rider of the motor-cycle. It always cannot be said that the charge sheet is fabricated one in every case of accident. Therefore, upon considering the evidence on record on preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the rider of the motor-cycle No.KA-26/J-6174 had dashed the deceased and caused the accident.
reported in (2021)1 SCC 171. Paragraph 21 reads as under:
21. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond
reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true.
all its preponderance of probabilities, it is proved that the deceased met with an accident as he was dashed by the vehicle as per Ex.R2-statement and further, it is proved that the motor cycle No.KA-26/J-6174 is involved in the accident as it has caused the accident and it has dashed the deceased and the deceased died in the said accident. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal.
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The Judgment and Award passed in MVC No.287/2009 dated 09.04.2012 by the District Judge and M.A.C.T, Gadag is confirmed.
iii) No order as to costs.
iv) Amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal along with a copy of this order.
SD/JUDGE
BNV CT-ASC
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim petition has merit despite the allegation that the motorcycle was falsely implicated.
Whether the belated lodging of complaint and lack of eye-witness examination invalidate the claim.
Whether the standard of proof applicable in MACT claim cases requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
SMT. RATNA W/O. SANGAPPA NEERALOTI
OTHER MINOR RESPONDENTS
SANJEEVKUMAR HANCHATE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
