Supreme Court of India
SAJEENA IKHBAL & ORS.versusMINI BABU GEORGE & ORS.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 787
- Decided
- 17 October 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- C T RAVIKUMAR
Holding
The Supreme Court held that, on the balance of probabilities, the car was involved in the accident and the claim petition is allowed, setting aside the lower courts' finding of non‑involvement.
Summary
The deceased Ikhbal was killed in a road accident where his motorcycle was allegedly struck by a car driven by respondent No.2. The appellants, his widow, child and parents, claimed compensation from the car's insurer, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the car’s involvement and negligent driving were not proved. The High Court affirmed this dismissal. On appeal under Article 136, the Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that multiple eyewitnesses, the police Mahazar showing damage to the car, and the driver’s own statements indicated the car was involved. The Court held that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, and that the lower courts erred in disbelieving a trustworthy eyewitness solely because his statement was not recorded by police. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' findings and allowed the claim, awarding the assessed compensation with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim on the ground of failure to prove negligent driving and involvement of the car.
- Whether the lower courts erred in disbelieving eyewitness PW-6 solely because his statement was not recorded by police.
- Whether the appropriate standard of proof in motor accident compensation claims is preponderance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether an appeal under Article 136 permits reappreciation of evidence when the findings of the tribunal or High Court are perverse.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Motor accidentNegligent drivingCompensationEvidenceArticle 136 of ConstitutionRe-appreciation of EvidencePreponderance of ProbabilityBeyond reasonable doubt
Judgment
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 786 : 2024 INSC 787
Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors.
v.
Mini Babu George & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 2024)
17 October 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing
the claim petition of appellants on the ground that the appellants
have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent
driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was
involved in the accident.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim died in an accident
after being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding in
his motorcycle – Claim petition by appellants – The MACT
assessed the compensation to hold that the appellants were
entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- – However,
the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the
appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due
to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved
that the car was involved in the accident – The findings of
MACT were affirmed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: The courts below have recorded the finding of non-
involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness,
PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was
not examined as an eyewitness – In considered view of this
Court, a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be
disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the
police have not recorded his statement during investigation – There
is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was
involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered
the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves
to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in
the accident – In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the
court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability
* Author
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 787
Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors.
and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt – The
evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of
preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the
car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to
the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible – The
Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car
is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above
the front bumper is curved – With such damages to the front side
of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the
car was not involved in the accident – In the light of the evidence
on record, the finding of the courts below are set aside that the
car was not involved in the accident, resultantly, holding that the
deceased died as a result of accident involving the car insured
with respondent no. 3 – Therefore, the claim petition to award
compensation to the appellants at Rs. 46,31,496/- along with
interest is allowed. [Paras 16, 17]
Case Law Cited
Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [2018] 5
SCR 287 : (2018) 5 SCC 656 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Motor accident; Negligent driving; Compensation; Evidence; Article
136 of Constitution; Re-appreciation of Evidence; Preponderance
of Probability; Beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA No. 3331 of 2016
Appearances for Parties
Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv., Bijo Mathew Joy, Dinny Thomas,
Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Advs. for the Appellants.
Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Rajeev Maheshwaranand
Roy, Advs. for the Respondents.
788 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019
passed by the High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 3331 of 2016
dismissing the appellants’ appeal while affirming the Award passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal1 by which the appellants’ claim
was dismissed. The parties are referred to in this judgment as they
appear in the claim petition.
2. The widow, minor child and parents of the deceased Ikhbal are the
appellants in the present proceedings. Ikhbal died in an accident on
10.06.2013 being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding in
his motorcycle from Thodupuzha to Muttom. He died of the injuries
sustained in the said accident which allegedly occurred on account
of the negligence of the driver of the car. Respondent nos. 1 to 3
are the owner, driver and insurer of the car respectively. Respondent
nos. 2 and 3 contested the claim petition while respondent no. 1
remained ex-parte.
3. According to the appellants, while the deceased was travelling on
a motorcycle and reached near ‘Mrala’ junction, a K.S.R.T.C. bus,
which was going in front, stopped at the bus stop. The deceased
attempted to overtake the bus and at that time the subject car driven
by respondent no. 2 came from the opposite direction and hit at the
motorcycle of the deceased on which he fell down and sustained
fatal injuries. He was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the
injuries. The deceased was an employee as U.D. Clerk in Registration
Department and had monthly income of Rs. 21,456/-.
4. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 denied the involvement of the car in the
accident. According to them, respondent no. 2 was driving the car
carefully and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
deceased because he attempted to overtake the parked K.S.R.T.C.
bus. In the process, the motorcycle hit on the bus and the deceased
fell down and sustained fatal injuries. The deceased was taken to
the hospital by respondent no. 2 who reached the spot soon after
1 ‘MACT’
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 789
Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors.
the accident. The car of respondent no. 2 did not hit the deceased’s
motorcycle. The respondent no. 3 admitted the policy.
5. The appellants examined six witnesses before the MACT while the
respondents examined two witnesses. Both the parties exhibited
number of documents in their evidence. The MACT assessed the
compensation to hold that the appellants are entitled to a total
compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/-. However, the claim petition was
dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove
that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent
no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was involved in the accident.
The said findings have been affirmed by the High Court.
6. Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, learned senior counsel for the appellants
submits that there is ample evidence demonstrating involvement of
the car in the subject accident and the findings to the contrary is
utterly perverse. It is argued that the MACT and the High Court as
well have recorded the findings adverse to the appellants basing on
conjectures and surmises and by complete misreading the evidence.
It is vehemently argued that the statement of witnesses have to
be read in conjunction with principle of res ipsa loquitur, which the
courts below have failed. Learned counsel prayed for allowing the
appeal to award the sum assessed by the MACT.
7. Per contra, Mr. Atul Nanda, learned senior counsel for respondent
no. 3 would submit that the courts below have correctly held that the
subject car owned by respondent no. 1 was not involved in the accident.
Referring to the statement of witnesses, learned senior counsel has
argued that none of the witnesses have seen the car hitting the
motorcycle driven by the deceased. It is lastly argued that both the
courts below have recorded the findings after careful examination of
the evidence which warrants no interference by this Court in exercise
of power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
8. Before proceeding to dwell on the merits of the matter we remind
ourselves that the present is an appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India wherein, ordinarily, this Court would not
reappreciate the evidence. However, this Court in Mangla Ram v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.2 has held that in an appeal
2 [2018] 5 SCR 287 : (2018) 5 SCC 656
790 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily this Court will
not engage itself in reappreciation of the evidence as such but can
certainly examine the evidence on record to consider the challenge
to the findings recorded by Tribunal or the High Court, being perverse
or replete with error apparent on the face of the record and being
manifestly wrong. This being the legal position, we proceed to
examine the evidence on record to examine the correctness of the
finding recorded by the courts below as to whether the subject car
was involved in the accident or not.
9. It was the case of the appellants from the inception that the
deceased was hit by the subject car which came driven from the
opposite direction as a result of which he was thrown on the road
and sustained fatal injuries. The final report (closure report) of FIR
No. 342 of 2013 records that the damage occurred to the subject car
is due to the skied motorcycle glide to the road and hit to the front
bumper and grill of the car, which was coming at that time and the
accident occurred for which the drivers of the bus or the car were
not responsible. However, it clearly records that there was damage
to the car on account of the accident.
10. PW-2 in his deposition stated that the accident was a result of collision
between the car and the bike. This witness is the driver of the bus.
He was sitting on the driver seat and after hearing the sound of the
accident, he looked back and saw the deceased was lying on the
road. Nearby people told him that the deceased was hit by the car
due to over speeding. In cross-examination he denied that the car
driver was not involved in the accident.
11. PW-3 is the Teashop owner at the place of occurrence. He says that
he heard the sound of accident, and the mudguard of the car was
detached. In cross-examination, he states that as the car hit, the
wheel of the bike rotated. He denied the suggestion that the bike
touched the bus and fell down or that he has not seen the offence.
12. PW-5 was the SHO of Karimkunnam Police Station who has prepared
the Mahazar of the car, bus and the bike. In the Mahazar of the
car, it was noted that the paint on the right side of the head light is
lost, and scratches are seen here and there on the right side of the
body. According to him, the grill of the car is dented, and parking
light is broken.
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 791
Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors.
13. PW-6 is an important witness who was presented as an eyewitness
to the accident. He had seen the motorcycle overtaking the bus and
at that time the car hit the motorcycle. The car forwarded a little and
stopped and the injured was taken to the hospital in the same car which
hit him. This witness has remained firm in the cross-examination.
14. RW-2 is respondent no. 2 as also the driver of the subject car. He
says that the bike skied and fell in front of the car. He admits in
cross-examination that when the motorcycle skied and reached in
front of the car, the bus was 100 feet away and he stopped the car
on the spot where the bike hit the car.
15. From the above evidence of the witnesses, it is apparent that (I) the
car had suffered damages; (II) the car driver admits that the bus
was 100 feet away when the motorcycle hit the car; (III) PW-6, an
eyewitness, has narrated the accident and (IV) PW-2, the driver of
the bus also speaks about hearing the sound of the accident and
nearby people telling him that the car had hit the bike.
16. The courts below have recorded the finding of non-involvement of the
car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the
ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an
eyewitness. In our considered view, a witness who is otherwise found
trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on
the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during
investigation. There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact
that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have
not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided
themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of
the car in the accident. In claim cases, arising out of motor accident,
the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability
and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of
preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car
was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the
car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible. The Mahazar
clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken,
front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front
bumper is curved. With such damages to the front side of the body
of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not
involved in the accident.
792 [2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
17. In the light of the evidence on record, we set aside the finding
of the courts below that the car was not involved in the accident,
resultantly, holding that the deceased died as a result of accident
involving the car insured with respondent no. 3. We, therefore, set
aside the judgment and order of the courts below and allow the claim
petition to award compensation to the appellants at Rs. 46,31,496/-
with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till the realisation of the payment, which shall be made within
three months from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry
interest @ 12% per annum.
18. The appeal is allowed accordingly in the above stated terms. The
parties shall bear their own costs.
Result of the Case: Appeal Allowed
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Motor accident"Sign in to search