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

The Gauhati High Court on Monday set aside the judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, pursuant to which the 23^rd Battalion of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) has to pay compensation of Rs. 14,57,732/- to the plaintiff on the ground that it has not been proved before the Tribunal that a vehicle belonging to 23^rd Battalion SSB was involved in the accident that killed the deceased.

The only judge bench consisting of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia observed:

“…..It is true that the provisions relating to the payment of damages in motor vehicle accidents are favorable legislation. The law of evidence does not strictly apply in such cases. But that doesn’t mean claims can be made without any evidence. First it must be determined which vehicle caused the accident and then the owner of that vehicle will be asked to pay damages. A vehicle not involved in a motor vehicle accident cannot be saddled with the obligation to pay compensation to the victim of a motor vehicle accident.”

According to the facts of the case, the deceased was riding a bicycle at Bagpuri Tiniali Chowk on November 19, 2009 at about 7:00 PM. It was alleged that a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) vehicle hit the deceased from behind due to which he died on the spot.

The deceased’s wife has filed a claim for compensation. The plaintiff has stated in her evidence that one SSB vehicle had caused the accident that led to the death of her husband. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang (Tribunal), she examined two other witnesses.

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

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

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed the present appeal before the High Court on the ground that no vehicle of 23^rd Battalion of SSB stationed at Bhairabkunda was involved in the said accident of 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 submitted that the place where the accident occurred is outside the jurisdiction of 23^rd Battalion of the SSB and therefore no vehicle of that battalion is allowed to travel outside its jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-defendant has submitted that since the death of the deceased in the accident is an admitted fact, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim as the plaintiff under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disability in respect of which a claim is made was the result of the tort, negligence or fault of the owner of the vehicle concerned.

The Court notes that in the written statement filed by the appellants it was alleged that 23^rd The SSB battalion has jurisdiction only from Bhairabkunda to Lalpool. It was further stated 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 that an SSB vehicle of the 23rd Battalion of the SSB was involved in the said accident in which the plaintiff’s husband was killed. The evidence of eyewitness Dejit Rabha is also shaky because he stated in his cross-examination that in the winter afternoon the light was low but faces of persons in that condition could be identified. He said that he identified the vehicle as an SSB vehicle after seeing the bonnet,” the court said.

Furthermore, the court noted that it has not been proven that a vehicle belonged to 23^rd Battalion SSB was involved in the accident that killed the deceased. The Court therefore rules that 23^rd Battalion SSB cannot be held to pay compensation to the plaintiff.

The Court therefore annulled the contested judgment and the Tribunal’s decision.

Visa: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 80

Case title: Union of India & 2 Ors. v. Smti. Ansumi Baro

Case number: MAC App./521/2019

Click here to read/download the order