Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd v. Baby Khushi

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 18.03.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in MACT No. 782/2016 titled Baby Khushi (Minor) v. Rahul & Ors.

3. The above claim petition was filed claiming that on 31.08.2013 at about 6:30 PM, the claimant was going on a Scooty bearing No. DL-9S-AM-4156 as a pillion rider along with her Aunty Annu @ Moni, who was driving the same. When the Scooty reached in front of P.S. Bindapur, suddenly one truck bearing No. DL-IL-G-4192, being driven by its driver, Shri Rahul (respondent no. 1 before the learned Tribunal), in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and hit the rear of the Scooty with its front bumper with great force. Due to this forceful impact, the Claimant along with her Aunty fell down on the road and the Claimant received grievous injury resulting in amputation of her left leg below knee. The claimant suffered permanent disability of 75%.

4. The limited challenge of the appellant to the Impugned Award is that the Claimant had failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to the truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner. She submits that it was the case of the driver of the truck that he was driving at a moderate speed, and it was only because the Scooty was being driven in a rash and negligent manner that the accident happened.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in fact, the Aunty of the claimant, who was driving the Scooty, did not possess a valid driving license. She submits that, therefore, a presumption should, in fact, have been drawn against the claimant on this issue.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, find no merit in the same.

7. The learned Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to the truck being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver thereof. The Tribunal also rejected the plea of contributory negligence by observing as under:-

8. I find no infirmity in the above findings of the learned Tribunal.

9. On the accident being caused due to the offending vehicle (truck) being driven rashly and negligently, the learned counsel for the appellant could not draw attention of the court to any evidence that would persuade this Court to take a contrary view from that of the learned Tribunal.

10. It is a settled law that in a claim petition filed under The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is not to prove the negligence of the Offending Vehicle beyond reasonable doubt; the same has to be determined on the basis of preponderance of probability.

11. In Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 65, the Supreme Court has held as under:

27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646: (2014) 1 SCC (Civ) 73: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 13], noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.