DULCINA FERNANDES & ORS. versus JOAQUIM XAVIER CRUZ & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 10 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 08-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 480 
DULCINA FERNANDES & ORS. 
v. 
JOAQUIM XAVIER CRUZ & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9094 of 2013) 
OCTOBER 08, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Claim under -
Adjudication of - To be on the touchstone of preponderance 
C of probability - Deceased was riding a scooter which got hit 
by the pick-up van driven by first respondent - Claim of wife 
and daughters of deceased - Claims Tribunal assessed 
compensation at Rs. 6. 66 lakhs, but ultimately rejected the 
claim citing that the accident had occurred on account of the 
D negligence of the deceased - Order affirmed by High Court -
On appeal, held: Evidence before the Tribunal was recorded 
seven years after the accident - Keeping in view the nature 
of the jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal, it was not correct 
on its part to hold against the claimants for their failure/ 
E inability to examine the pillion rider 'R' as a witness, more 
particularly in view of the hapless condition in which the 
claimants must have been placed after death of their sole 
breadwinner and the sufficiently long period of time that had 
lapsed in the meantime - Further, the Tribunal was not entirely 
F correct in rejecting the evidence of the CW-3 and 5 - Similarly 
it erred in accepting the evidence tendered by the first 
respondent - CW-2, Head Constable, had deposed that a 
criminal case was rf3gistered against the first respondent in 
connection with the accident - Statements made by him were 
G significant to the issues arising in the instant case - Said 
aspects of the evidence of CW-2 not considered by the 
Tribunal - High Court failed to notice the lacunae in the award 
of the Tribunal - Case fit for interference by Supreme Court -
Accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent 
H 
480 
DULCINA FERNANDES & ORS. v. JOAQUIM XAVIER 481 
CRUZ & ANR. 
driving of the pick-up van by the first respondent - Claimants-
A 
appellants entitled to compensation as quantified by the 
Tribunal alongwith interest@ 6% p.a with effect from the date 
of the award of the Tribunal. 
N' was driving a scooter while 'R' was riding pillion 
8 
when the pick-up van driven by the first respondent 
allegedly in a rash and negligent manner hit the scooter 
as a result of which both 'N' and 'R' fell off and suffered 
injuries. 'N' died due to the injuries sustained. The wife 
and the daughters of 'N', i.e. the appellants, lodged Claim 
Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 C 
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The first 
respondent took the stand that the accident occurred as 
the deceased was driving the scooter under the influence 
of liquor. The Tribunal framed four issues. Though under 
issue No.3 the Tribunal assessed the compensation 
D 
payable to the claimants at Rs.6,66,041.78, in view of its' 
findings against issues 1 and 4, namely that the accident 
had occurred on account of the negligence of the 
deceased, the Tribunal thought it proper to reject the 
claim of the appellants. The order was affirmed by the 
E 
High Court, and, therefore the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The plea of negligence on the part of the 
first respondent who was driving the pick-up van as set 
F 
up by the claimants was required to be decided by the 
Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability 
and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable 
doubt. Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and 
determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an 
G 
adversarial litigation. [Para 7] [486-E-F; 487-A] 
1.2. While it is correct that the pillion rider 'R' could 
have best unfolded the details of the accident what 
cannot be lost sight of is the fact that while the accident 
H 
482 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 10 S.C.R. 
! 
A occurred on 29.06.1997 the evidence before the Tribunal 
was recorded after seven years i.e. in the year 2004. 
Keeping in view the nature of the jurisdiction that is 
exercised by a Claims Tribunal under the Act, it was not 
correct on the part of the Tribunal to hold against the 
B claimants for their failure or inability to examine the pillion 
rider 'R' as a witness in the case. Taking into account the 
hapless condition in which the claimants must have been 
placed after the death of their sole breadwinner and the 
.sufficiently long period of time that has elapsed in the 
c meantime, the Tribunal should not have treated the non-
ex

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