MACT cases to be decided on preponderance of probability, non-examination of Eyewitness not fatal, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT/ Tribunal) must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases..The Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi also held that non-examination of an eye witness will not be fatal to MACT cases..The Court, therefore, overturned the judgment of Rajasthan High Court which had disallowed compensation claims on the above grounds..Advocate Anuj Bhandari appeared for the appellants while advocate SK Bhattacharya represented the respondents..In this case, one Sitaram was riding on a motorcycle along with a pillion rider one Rajulal Khateek when they collided with a bus coming from the opposite direction. Sitaram passed away while Rajulal received severe injuries..The wife of Sitaram and their two minor children (appellants) filed a petition in MACT for compensation. The same was allowed by MACT and compensation to the tune of Rs. 48 lakh was awarded..The Respondent, Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, filed an appeal against the same in Rajasthan High Court. The appellants also filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation..The High Court after hearing the case set aside the Tribunal’s judgment in entirety, on the following grounds:.nonexamination of the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek, was fatal to the case of the appellants,the witness Bhagchand (AD 2) was unreliable and his evidence could not be reckonedthe site map of the accident showed that the deceased Sitaram was riding his motorcycle on the wrong side of the road at the time when the accident occurred, thus, proving that it was Sitaram, and not respondent No.2 (bus driver), who was guilty of negligence..The matter then came to Supreme court in appeal..The Supreme Court at the outset noted the “hypertechnical” approach adopted by the High Court in dismissing the petition. It said that such an approach has no place in a case for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)..“We have no hesitation in observing that such a hypertechnical and trivial approach of the High Court cannot be sustained in a case for compensation under the Act, in connection with a motor vehicle accident resulting in the death of a family member.” .The Court held that it is well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle. While doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties..Importantly, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases, the Court ruled..In the present case, the Court concluded that the Tribunal had followed a just approach in the matter of appreciation of the evidence/materials on record. However, the High Court adopted a strict interpretation of the evidence on the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt to record an adverse finding against the appellants and to reverse the well-considered judgment of the MACT..The next question was whether the purported shortcomings in the evidence of Bhagchand Khateek (AD 2) and the lack of evidence of the pillion rider on the motorcycle, Rajulal Khateek, would be fatal to the appellants’ case..As regards the evidence of Bhagchand, the High Court had found that the deposition of the said witness was unreliable because his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses in the criminal proceedings and also because he was unable to tell the age of the pillion rider..The Supreme Court, however, noted that the MACT had dealt with the above objections quite substantially and correctly, in its judgment..The evidence given by Bhagchand withstood the respondents’ scrutiny and the respondents were unable to shake his evidence, the Court said. Hence, the approach of the High Court in deliberating on the reliability of Bhagchand’s evidence based on him not being named in the list of eyewitnesses in the criminal proceedings was mystifying, the Court said..Further, the Court also noted that the High Court had accepted that Bhagchand had been cross-examined by the respondents..“If there was any doubt to be cast on the veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in cross-examination, for which opportunity was granted to the respondents by the Tribunal.”.After accepting that the witness was cross-examined, it was not correct for the High Court to reach a different conclusion by selectively overlooking the deficiencies in the respondent’s case, without any proper reasoning, the Court made it clear..The next issue was whether non-examination of the eye witness, the pillion rider, would be fatal to the case..The Court answered the same in the negative holding that the approach in examining the evidence in accident claim cases is not to find fault with non-examination of some “best” eye witness in the case. Rather it is to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue on the touchstone of preponderance of probability..It, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of High Court and restored the award passed by MACT..Read the judgment below..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.