close
close

Ourladyoftheassumptionparish

Part – Newstatenabenn

Car accident claims must be supported by evidence, vehicles not involved in accident cannot be asked to pay compensation: Gauhati High Court
patheur

Car accident claims must be supported by evidence, vehicles not involved in accident cannot be asked to pay compensation: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the judgment and award passed by the Darrang Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by which it ordered the 23third Sashastra Seema Bal Battalion (SSB) to pay compensation worth Rs. 14,57,732/- to the plaintiff, for not having proven before the Court that a vehicle belonging to 23third The SSB battalion was involved in the accident where the deceased lost his life.

The single court made up of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed:

“…..It is true that the provisions relating to the payment of compensation for motor vehicle accidents are beneficial legislations. The law of evidence is not strictly applicable in such cases. But that does not mean that claims should be allowed without any evidence. It must first be determined which vehicle caused the accident and then the owner of said vehicle will be asked to pay compensation. “A vehicle that has not been involved in a car accident cannot have the responsibility to pay compensation to a victim of a car accident.”

According to the facts of the case, on November 19, 2009, at around 7 pm, the deceased was riding a bicycle at Bagpuri Tiniali Chowk. It is alleged that a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) vehicle hit the deceased from behind, due to which he died on the spot.

The wife of the deceased filed a compensation petition seeking compensation. The plaintiff stated in her testimony that an SSB vehicle had caused the accident that led to the death of her husband. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang (Court), he examined two other witnesses.

One of the witnesses stated in his statement that he has a grocery store near the scene of the incident. He further stated that an SSB vehicle heading towards Bhergaon at very high speed had hit the bicycle of the deceased. He claimed to be an eyewitness to said event. On the other hand, another witness stated that at the time of the events he was at home and was informed by the first witness about the aforementioned accident.

After examining the evidence, the Court accepted the prayer of the plaintiff and awarded a sum of Rs. 14,57,732/- as compensation.

Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and award, the appellants filed this appeal before the Superior Court considering that no 23-year-old vehiclethird The SSB battalion stationed at Bhairabkunda was involved in the said accident on November 19, 2009.

The counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that all SSB vehicles have a particular color and that color is also used by some private vehicles. It was further argued that the place where the accident occurred is outside the jurisdiction of 23third SSB Battalion and therefore no vehicle belonging to said Battalion will be able to leave the jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent contended that since the death of the deceased in the accident is an admitted fact, the Court has rightly allowed the claim petition because under Section 163A of the Vehicle Act Motorized vehicles, the plaintiff is not required to allege or establish that the death or permanent disability with respect to which a claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or negligence or fault of the owner of the vehicle in question.

The Court noted that in the brief presented by the appellants it was stated that 23third The SSB battalion has jurisdiction from Bhairabkunda to Lalpool only. It was further alleged that no vehicle belonging to this Battalion goes to the scene of the incident which is outside its jurisdiction.

“In this case, there is no evidence to support that an SSB vehicle belonging to 23rd SSB Battalion was involved in the said accident in which the complainant’s husband lost his life. The testimony of eyewitness Dejit Rabha is also shaky because in his cross-examination he stated that in the winter afternoon there was little light but faces of people could be identified in those conditions. He said that he identified the vehicle as an SSB vehicle after seeing its bonnet,” the Court observed.

The Court further observed that it is not proven that a vehicle belonging to 23third The SSB battalion was involved in the accident where the deceased lost his life. Therefore, the Court held that 23third The SSB Battalion cannot be considered obliged to pay compensation to the plaintiff.

Thus, the Court annulled the contested judgment and the award issued by the Court.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 80

Case Title: Union of India and 2 Ors. against Smti. Ansumi Baro

Case No.: MAC App./521/2019

Click here to read/download the order