In Appeal U/S.173 Of Motor Vehicles Act, High Court Has to Decide All Issues After Appreciating Entire Evidence: Supreme Court

The Court was considering an appeal, filed by the claimants, assailing an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court setting aside the award of the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The MACT had, by the said award, allowed the claim of appellants, who are the wife and son of the deceased Chakradhar Dubey and awarded a compensation of Rs 50,41,289 against the respondents jointly and severally.

The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V.Viswanathan explained, ““An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of the First Appeal.In our considered view, the least that is expected is a careful marshalling of the oral and documentary evidence produced before the MACT. ”

Advocate Girijesh Pandey represented the Appellants while AOR Nanita Sharma represented the Respondents.

According to the claimants, Chakradhar Dubey - the deceased was posted as Assistant Post-Master, Post Office Sarlanagar, Tehsil Maihar. The deceased was returning to his house in a car of his friend, after his duty, when the incident took place. A truck which was driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the car in which the deceased was sitting. As a result, Dubey suffered serious injuries and his spine was broken. He was admitted to a Hospital but he succumbed to his injuries and died. An FIR was registered in the year 2018 was registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.

It was the case of the claimant widow that she came to know that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 who drove the truck of respondent no. 3. The claimant widow gave the information to the Superintendent of Police. The amount claimed by the claimants was Rs 59,30,000. The Insurance Company disputed the claim.Aggrieved by the fact that the Insurance Company’s Appeal was allowed by the HIgh Court, the claimants approached the Apex Court.

The Bench showed its amazement at the fact that in a First Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court made a short shrift of the matter and by a summary order reversed the detailed award passed by the MACT.

"Except for a fleeting reference to the evidence of PW-2, there is no real discussion on the substance of his deposition. What is matter of concern is that there is no reference at all to Exh.P-1 final report, Exh.P-2 the First Information Report, Exh.P-16 the seizure memo of the vehicle after the issuance of Section 133 notice under the Motor Vehicles Act and also no discussion on the findings of the MACT”, the Bench said.

Further referring to its judgments in Sudarsan Puhan vs. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty and Others, (2018) Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mamta and Others, (2016) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar and 12 Others, (2000), the Bench said, “It is well settled by several pronouncements of this Court that an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is essentially in the nature of the first appeal like Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been held by this Court that the High Court is under a legal obligation to decide all issues both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence.”

Considering the timeline of the incident, the Bench said, “However, since the incident is of the year 2018, and already 6 years had elapsed, we felt that any further delay will only compound the agony of the already devastated family.”

“...it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable”, the Bench said. Applying the test of preponderance of probability, the Bench found that the claimants established their case proving the involvement of the same truck and car as alleged in the incident.

On the Insurance Company's plea of collusion, the Bench found no reason for the police to falsely implicate the vehicle concerned in the matter and launch prosecution against the driver. As per the Bench, if the insurance company had suspected collusion, they would have taken steps to file appropriate complaints including moving the higher police authorities or the court to order an investigation into the alleged wrongful involvement of the vehicle.

“There is no case for the insurance company that the police officer also colluded. The investigation by the police has resulted in charge-sheet being filed”, the Bench further noted.

Regarding the age of the deceased, no evidence was adduced by the insurance company to show that the age was 58 years. The claimants clearly pleaded in the claim petition that the age of the deceased was 55 years and proved the same.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the judgment of the High Court and restored the award passed by the MACT.

Cause Title:Geeta Dubey & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 998)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Girijesh Pandey, Alpana Pandey, Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Avanish Pandey,. Sohan Lal Adak, AOR Sriram P.

Respondents: AOR Nanita Sharma

Click here to read/download Judgment