The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) has held that mere violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not, by itself, establish negligence or contributory negligence unless a causal connection between such violation and the accident is demonstrated by acceptable evidence. The Court clarified that in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Claims Tribunal must appreciate contemporaneous police documents, FIR, charge-sheet, and investigation records, as relevant material on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and cannot dismiss claims at the threshold without properly examining such material.
Accordingly, the common Award passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to decide both claim petitions afresh in accordance with law after independently considering the evidence relating to the involvement of the offending Jeep, the manner in which the accident occurred, the plea of rash and negligent driving against respondent No. 1, and the plea of contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the rider of the Scooty.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Seth reiterated the well-settled legal position that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. It was further held that contemporaneous police documents such as the FIR, site map, charge-sheet, and other records prepared during investigation constitute relevant material for determining the question of negligence.
On the Tribunal’s failure to appreciate evidence: The Court observed that the Tribunal proceeded on the premise that the offending Jeep was falsely implicated and that no accident involving the said vehicle had taken place, but failed to properly appreciate the pleadings and the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court found that the Respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending Jeep, in his written statement merely denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving. He did not plead that the Scooty had struck against a wall or that the accident had occurred due to any independent cause. However, while entering the witness box, respondent No. 1 introduced an altogether new version by deposing that on seeing the headlights of the Jeep, the rider of the Scooty lost control and the Scooty struck against a wall.
On overloading and negligence, the Court held that the Tribunal’s observation that since three adults and one child were travelling on the Scooty, the accident must necessarily have occurred due to the negligence of its rider, could not be sustained in law. Mere violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act or carrying passengers in excess of the prescribed limit does not, by itself, establish negligence or contributory negligence unless it is shown by acceptable evidence that such violation had a causal connection with the occurrence of the accident.
The Court clarified that it was not inclined to record any final finding either with regard to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 or with regard to contributory negligence, if any, on the part of the rider of the Scooty. Whether the overloading had any causal connection with the accident, whether the rider contributed to the accident, and if so, to what extent, were all questions of fact requiring comprehensive appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence. Since the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petitions at the threshold, it had not independently examined these issues nor determined the quantum of compensation.
Also Read Delhi HC Seeks Centre, FSSAI Response on Plea for India-Specific Study on Artificial Sweeteners
Briefly, the appeals arose from a common Award passed by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were dismissed.
The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on Aug 15, 2005, claimant Vishvendra Singh, aged about eight years and studying in Class III, along with his sister Uma and maternal grandmother Rajabeti, was travelling on a Kinetic Zing Scooty from Moti Mahal towards Phool Bagh in Gwalior. When they reached near Moti Mahal Gate, a Jeep allegedly being driven by respondent No. 1 Inder Singh in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the Scooty. As a result, both claimants sustained grievous injuries, Vishvendra Singh suffered a leg fracture, underwent surgery, and sustained permanent disability, while Rajabeti also sustained serious injuries and fractures resulting in permanent disability. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Padav against the driver of the offending Jeep, and after investigation, criminal proceedings were initiated against him.
The respondents contested the claim petitions by denying the occurrence of any accident involving the offending Jeep. Their defence was that the Jeep had not collided with the Scooty and that, since three adults and one child were travelling on the two-wheeler, the Scooty lost balance and fell on its own after its rider became frightened on seeing the headlights of the Jeep. Respondent No. 1, the driver of the Jeep, also denied the allegations of rash and negligent driving.
