23 years after wife’s death in road mishap, labourer awarded ₹10-lakh relief by HC

HC observes standard of proof required in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cases is much below than criminal and civil cases

Nearly 23 years after a woman died in an accident near Lalru in 1999, the Punjab and Haryana high court has awarded her family a ₹10-lakh compensation while observing that standard of proof required to establish a case in an accident claims case is much below than criminal and civil cases.

The accident victim, Tiliya Devi, was walking on the Chandigarh-Ambala highway near Lalru on February 9, 1999, when she was hit by a car. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

“In a criminal case, in order to have a conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. Undoubtedly, the inquiry before the tribunal is a summary inquiry and, therefore, does not require strict proof of liability,” the bench of justice Archana Puri observed.

Referring to the case in hand, the bench said, an FIR was lodged, the charge sheet was filed and the car driver, after causing the accident, had fled away.

The driver had denied the accident in response to the claim petition, but had remained away from the witness box. In such a scenario, the documents, such as FIR, charge sheet, etc., are sufficient to establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident, particularly when there was no defence available from his side before the tribunal, the court said.

Woman was hit by car in February 1999

The accident victim, Tiliya Devi, was walking on the Chandigarh-Ambala highway near Lalru on February 9, 1999, when she was hit by a car. The driver had fled from the spot. Devi had died the next day, leaving behind her husband, a migrant labourer, and three children.

The MACT had dismissed the compensation claim by the family, holding that it was not able to prove that the death was caused in a motor vehicle accident.

The high court recorded that there was no doubt that there were some glaring gaps in the case of the family, including the fact that the husband had told the police that he did not know about the vehicle number.

But, the court said, “…the testimony of this witness is not to be read singularly. One cannot lose sight of the fact that appellants-claimants have a rustic background. However, there are other material facts, coming on record, which have bearing on establishment of the accident and the manner of causing of the same as well as involvement of the vehicle in question,” the bench recorded, adding that the tribunal doubted the genuineness of the challan, simply on the basis of gaps/discrepancies in the husband’s testimony.

“However, this is not fair. The learned tribunal stretched itself too far,” the bench, said adding that it was an accepted fact that the investigation report, FIR and charge sheet were not conclusive evidence but had a persuasive value.

Now, the high court has awarded the family a ₹10.41-lakh compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim till realisation, while holding the car driver, owner and insurer jointly liable to pay the compensation.