LexSAJEENA IKHBAL & ORS. versus MINI BABU GEORGE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 786 : 2024 INSC 787 Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 2024) 17 October 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition of appellants on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was involved in the accident. Headnotes† Motor Vehicle Accident claim – Victim died in an accident after being knocked down by a car as he was proceeding in his motorcycle – Claim petition by appellants – The MACT assessed the compensation to hold that the appellants were entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- – However, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of respondent no. 2/driver, nor it is proved that the car was involved in the accident – The findings of MACT were affirmed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: The courts below have recorded the finding of non- involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness, PW-6 only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness – In considered view of this Court, a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation – There is abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in the accident – In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability * Author [2024] 10 S.C.R. 787 Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. v. Mini Babu George & Ors. and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt – The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible – The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front bumper is curved – With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident – In the light of the evidence on record, the finding of the courts below are set aside that the car was not involved in the accident, resultantly, holding that the deceased died as a result of accident involving the car insured with respondent no. 3 – Therefore, the claim petition to award compensation to the appellants at Rs. 46,31,496/- along with interest is allowed. [Paras 16, 17] Case Law Cited Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [2018] 5 SCR 287 : (2018) 5 SCC 656 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Motor accident; Negligent driving; Compensation; Evidence; Article 136 of Constitution; Re-appreciation of Evidence; Preponderance of Probability; Beyond reasonable doubt. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2019 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA No. 3331 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv., Bijo Mathew Joy, Dinny Thomas, Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Advs. for the Appellants. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Advs. for the Respondents. 788 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 3331 of 2016 dismissing the appellants’ appeal while affirming the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal1 by which the appellants’ claim was dismissed. The parties are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the claim petition. 2. The widow, minor child and parents of the deceased Ikhbal are the appellants in the present proceedings. Ikhbal died in an accident on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.