New India Assurance Company Ltd v. MS Mahendri & Ors.

1. This is an Application filed by the Respondent Nos.[1] to 5/Claimants seeking release of the awarded amount deposited by the Appellant.

2. A Predecessor Bench of this Court by its ex-parte order dated 18.10.2022 directed that 75% of the awarded amount shall be deposited by the Appellant with the learned Tribunal.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.[1] to 5/Claimants submits that no amounts have been released to the Respondent Nos.[1] to 5/Claimants pursuant to this deposit.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant objects to this Application. Learned Counsel submits that it is the entire case of the Appellant that the witness was planted. Learned Counsel further submits that this aspect was referred to by the Appellant in its Written Statement that was placed on record before the learned Tribunal wherein it is stated that the offending vehicle is wrongly implemented in this case. Thus, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the awarded amount cannot be released in favour of the Respondent Nos.[1] to 5/Claimants.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.[1] to 5/Claimants, on the other hand, makes two submissions. Firstly, learned Counsel submits that so far as concerns the plea of ‘planted witness’, the said plea has been adjudicated upon by the learned Tribunal. It is contended that the learned Tribunal has relied upon the deposition of an eye-witness PW-3 in this behalf and has given a finding that the statement of PW-3 could not be impeached. 5.[1] Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.[1] to 5/Claimants, in addition, submits that in support of the plea of witness being planted, no evidence was led by the Appellant before the Tribunal and the crossexamination of the eye-witness did not bring out any infirmity in his testimony. In addition, it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not examined.

6. The examination of the Impugned Award dated 28.05.2022 shows that this aspect has been discussed in the Impugned Award and a finding with respect to the liability has been given by the learned Tribunal. It is apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs of the Impugned Award dated 28.05.2022 in this behalf:

offending truck was being driven by its Driver at a high speed in a zigzag manner and in a rash and negligent way. It was behind the car and hit the car as a result of which the car fell into the Canal/River. Police was informed and with the help the JCB Crane, the car was pulled out from the Canal. The driver of the car was found dead on the driving seat. The witness was duly cross examined by ld. counsel for insurance company, during crossexamination the witness categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle stopped the vehicle for sometime and then fled away from spot. He noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle. Nothing came out from his cross-examination which could impeach his credibility or raise any doubt about his deposition. He has clearly deposed about the manner in which the truck driver was driving and how the accident had happened. His testimony is sufficient enough to show that the driver of offending truck was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and the speed was beyond his control.

17. Thus, from the evidence led on the record, the petitioners on the basis of preponderance of probabilities have been able to establish that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. Issue no.1 is decided in favor of petitioners and against the respondents.” [Emphasis Supplied]

7. The finding of the learned Tribunal is that the cross-examination did not impeach the credibility of the eye-witness and the testimony of no other witness contradicted the same.

8. It is no longer res integra that the MV Act is a beneficial legislation which is intended to place the claimant in the same position as that of before the accident. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd[1]., has held that MV Act is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families and thus the provisions of MV Act warrant liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and to fulfil the legislative intent. The relevant extract of the

9. Accordingly, let 60% of the awarded amount be released in favour of Respondent Nos.[1] to 5/Claimants in accordance with the scheme, as is set out in the Impugned Award.

10. The Application stands disposed of in the aforegoing terms. MAC.APP. 311/2022, CM APPL. 43710/2022[Stay]