SUNITA & ORS. versus RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 14-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
SUNITA & ORS.
v.
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
& ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1665 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 14, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Fatal accident – Award of
compensation – Victim-Government School teacher riding a
motorcycle, met with a fatal accident, in collision with a bus, rashly
and negligently driven by respondent no.2 and owned by respondent
no.1 – Pillion rider also sustained injuries – Award of compensation
of Rs.48,33,235/- jointly and severally to the appellants and the
parents of the victim, along with interest after deduction of income
tax from the calculated income – High Court set aside the tribunal’s
judgment – On appeal, held: High Court reversed the well
considered and exhaustive judgment of the tribunal in a cryptic
manner – Such a hyper-technical and trivial approach of the High
Court cannot be sustained – Tribunal followed a just approach in
the matter of appreciation of the evidence/materials on record
whereas, the High Court adopted a strict interpretation of the
evidence on the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt –
Non-examination of the pillion rider, not fatal to appellant’s case
since the other evidence on record was good enough to prima facie
establish the manner in which the accident had occurred and the
identity of the parties involved in the accident – Tribunal justified
in placing reliance on the evidence of witnesses, on the contents of
FIR, charge-sheet and site plan which prima facie indicate the
negligence of the bus driver in driving the bus – Thus, the order
passed by the High Court is set aside and the award by the tribunal
is restored.
Motor Vehicle Accident: Standard of proof – Held: While
deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard
of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability
and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt
which is followed in criminal cases – There is nothing in the Act to
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 329
  329
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 3 S.C.R.
preclude citing of a witness in motor accident claim who has not
been named in the list of witnesses in criminal cases.
Evidence: Best Eye witness – Non-examination of – Effect of
– Held: Approach is not to find fault with non-examination of some
best eye-witness but to analyse the evidence already on record to
ascertain whether that is sufficient to answer the matters in issue
on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
Plea: New plea – Appellant seeking enhanced compensation
before this Court –Permissibility of – Award of compensation amount
by the tribunal, challenged on the limited ground of deduction of
income tax from the calculated income before the High Court –
Rejection of appeal by the High Court not challenged by the
appellant – On appeal, held: The limited ground is not sustainable
– Appellants cannot be permitted to widen the scope in the instant
appeal, muchless pray for enhanced compensation – Award passed
by the tribunal is restored – Compensation.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The well-considered and exhaustive judgment
of the tribunal came to be reversed by the High Court, in a cryptic
manner in few pages. The thrust of the reasoning given by the
High Court rests on the unreliability of the witnesses presented
by the appellants: evidence given by A.D.2 was unreliable because
he was not shown as a witness in the list of witnesses mentioned
in the charge sheet filed by the police and that the said witness
could not identify the age of the pillion rider, R who was the “best”
witness in the matter, was not presented for examination by the
appellants. The High Court also relied on the site map to record
the finding on the factum of negligence of the deceased in causing
the accident which resulted in his death. Such a hyper-technical
and trivial approach of the High Court cannot be sustained in a
case for compensation, in connection with a motor vehicle accident
resulting in the death of a family member. [Para 19, 20] [341-D;
342-E-G]
1.2 In motor accident claim cases, once the foundational
fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been
established, then the tribunal’s role would be to calculate the
quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while
doing so, the tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings
of the

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