ANITA SHARMA & ORS. versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1118 · Decided: 08-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
ANITA SHARMA & ORS.
v.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4010-4011 of 2020)
DECEMBER 08, 2020
[SURYA KANT AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Motor Vehicle Accident – Victim-deceased was travelling in a
car along with his friend, respondent no. 2 and two other occupants
– Respondent no. 2 (owner of the car) was driving the car at night,
when a truck came from the opposite side and struck the car as a
result of which all the occupants suffered injuries – They were all
rushed to the hospital – Victim was discharged – However, he kept
experiencing one after another medical complication and eventually
died due to injuries – Victim-deceased’s dependents filed a claim
petition for Rs. 60,94,000/- and alleged that victim died due to the
rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 – The Tribunal relied
upon the statement of the eye-witness, AW-3, according to whom
respondent no. 2 was driving car at a very fast speed when it
overtook a vehicle and collided head-on against the oncoming truck
– The Tribunal assigned liability for the accident upon the
respondents and partly allowed the claim petition with a
compensation of Rs.16,08,000/- – The High Court set aside the
Tribunal award and dismissed the claim petition – The High Court
disbelieved AW-3 and found him unreliable witness – According to
the High Court, AW-3 had failed to report the accident to the
jurisdictional police and he was apparently introduced by the
claimants only to seek compensation – Also, it was held that the
assertion of AW-3 that he took the injured to the hospital was not
proved – Further, the FIR was lodged by the owner-cum-driver,
respondent no. 2, who would not have done so had he been at fault
or driving rashly – On appeal, held: Some material facts have
escaped notice of the High Court – The FIR was not registered by
the owner-cum-driver of the car as assumed by the High Court – It
was registered by one person ‘P’, who had not witnessed the accident
and lodged on basis of the hearsay information – Further, the
informant had some closeness with the owner-cum-driver of the car
– His version is hearsay and may be influenced by respondent no.2
[2020] 12 S.C.R. 1118
1118
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1119
and thus, cannot be relied upon – The contents of the FIR as well as
the statement of AW-3 leave no room to doubt that the injured were
taken to the hospital by private persons (and not by the Police) –
There is nothing on record to suggest that the Police reached the
site of the accident or carried the injured to the hospital – AW-3 is
neither related to the deceased nor was he remotely connected to
the family of the deceased – The statement of AW-3, therefore,
acquires significance as, according to him, he brought the injured
in his car – It is quite natural that such a person who had
accompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid,
could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodge
the FIR – The High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse
inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to
police – Further, failure of the respondents to cross-examine the
solitary eye-witness, AW-3 must lead to an inference of tacit
admission on their part – Also, the fact that respondent no. 2 chose
not to depose in support of what he had pleaded in his written
statement, further suggests that he himself was at fault – The High
Court failed to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of
evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are
inapplicable in MACT claim cases – The standard of proof in such
matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond
reasonable doubt – Therefore, the judgment of the High Court is
set aside and the appellants are entitled to compensation as awarded
by the Tribunal, besides 40% addition in the annual income of the
deceased towards ‘future prospects’.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The two questions which fall for determination
are whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent
driving of the car driver and whether AW-3 is a reliable witness
or not? [Para 10][1124-F-G]
2. AW-3 is neither related to the deceased nor was he
remotely connected to the family of the deceased. He hailed from
a different State and lived in a faraway place. There is nothing to
suggest that the witness had any business dealings with the
deceased or his family. He has deposed that he w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.