Motor Accident Claims Must be Backed by Evidence: Gauhati High Court

Staff Reporter

Guwahati: In a recent ruling by the Gauhati High Court, any motor accident claim must be supported by substantial evidence, and a vehicle not involved in the accident cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the victim. The HC essentially stated that claims must be backed by proof and only the responsible vehicle can be held accountable for damages.

The single-judge bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia recently set aside the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, by which it has directed the 23rd Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) to pay a compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,57,732 to the claimant. The appeal was made under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgement and award dated April 23, 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldai, in MAC (D) Case No.57/2017.

The facts of the case are that, on November 19, 2009, at about 7 p.m., late Bhupen Baro @ Ghusum Baro was riding a bicycle at Bagpuri Tiniali Chowk under Tangla Police Station when a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) vehicle hit him from behind. As a result, Bhupen Baro @ Ghusum Baro died on the spot. An FIR was lodged and Tangla P.S. Case No.83/09 was registered. The deceased was a businessman by profession and was earning an amount of Rs 10,000 per month. He was 30 years old and left behind his wife and one minor son.

A claim petition seeking compensation was filed. The claimant, Ansumi Baro, stated in her evidence that one SSB vehicle had caused the accident leading to the death of her husband. Two other witnesses, namely, Dejit Rabha and Ramesh Baro, were examined. Dejit Rabha stated in his evidence that he has a grocery shop near the place of occurrence. He had stated that one SSB vehicle that was going towards Bhergaon at a very high speed had hit the bicycle of the deceased. He claimed to be an eyewitness to the said occurrence. On the other hand, the witness, Ramesh Baro, stated that at the relevant time of occurrence, he was in his home, and he was informed by Dejit Rabha about the said accident.

The present appellants examined one witness named Kaikho Athikho, who was serving in the 23rd Battalion of SSB Lalpool at that time, and stated that the place where the accident took place was outside the jurisdiction of the 23rd Battalion and that no vehicle of the Battalion had gone to that area on that day, and therefore, the 23rd Battalion of SSB is not liable for the accident.

However, on conclusion of hearing, the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs 14,57,732 as compensation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement, the appellants filed the present appeal.

The only ground taken by the appellants is that no vehicle of the 23rd Battalion of SSB stationed at Bhairabkunda was involved in the said accident dated November 19, 2009.

After having gone through the evidence available in the records, the judge concluded that, admittedly, Ansumi Baro never saw the accident. In his cross-examination, the witness, Dejit Rabha, has stated that he identified the vehicle to be an SSB vehicle by seeing the hood of the vehicle. The witness Ramesh Baro is also not an eyewitness.

The judge considered the submissions made by the counsel of both sides. The appellant claimed in a written statement that the 23rd Battalion of SSB has jurisdiction from Bhairabkunda to Lalpool only and that no vehicle of this Battalion goes to the place of occurrence, which is outside its jurisdiction.

In this case, there is no evidence at all to hold that an SSB vehicle belonging to the 23rd Battalion of SSB was involved in the said accident, wherein the husband of the claimant lost his life. The evidence of the eyewitness Dejit Rabha is also shaky. He said that he identified the vehicle to be an SSB vehicle after seeing its hood.

The judge held it is true that the provisions regarding payment of compensation to motor vehicle accidents are beneficial legislation. The law of evidence is not strictly applicable in such cases. But that does not mean that, without any evidence, claim petitions should be allowed. It must be ascertained first as to which vehicle had caused the accident, and after that, the owner of the said vehicle shall be asked to pay the compensation. A vehicle not involved in a motor vehicle accident cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation to a victim of a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had erroneously appreciated the evidence available in the record and arrived at an incorrect finding; the judge ruled and allowed the appeal accordingly. The judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldai, were set aside.

 Also Read: Assam: Two Youth Killed In Tragic Road Accident On Indo-Bhutan Highway In Baksa District

Also watch: