Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166, 168, 169, 173 — Motor accident claim — Standard of proof
In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are required to establish negligence only on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials do not apply to proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
(Paras 15–20)
Motor accident — Negligence — Proof — FIR, inquest report and MVI report
Non-examination of an eye-witness or non-filing of charge-sheet is not fatal to a motor accident claim. Certified copies of public documents such as FIR, inquest report and Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report are admissible and can form the basis to infer negligence, particularly when the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remain ex parte.
(Paras 13–17, 21–22)
Motor accident — Tribunal’s approach — Summary enquiry
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is required to adopt a holistic and pragmatic approach consistent with the summary nature of enquiry contemplated under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules. Technical flaws or absence of best evidence cannot defeat a legitimate claim.
(Paras 18–20)
Motor accident — Insurer’s defence — Failure to examine driver/owner
Where the owner and driver of the offending vehicle remain ex parte and the insurer does not take steps to examine them, an adverse inference can be drawn, particularly when the insurer disputes only the quantum of compensation and not the occurrence of the accident.
(Paras 21–22, 32)
Compensation — Determination — Multiplier method
Determination of compensation must follow the multiplier method as laid down in Sarla Verma, taking into account the age of the deceased, income, number of dependants, appropriate multiplier, deduction towards personal expenses and addition under conventional heads.
(Paras 23–24, 29–30)
Compensation — Future prospects
Future prospects are to be added in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, even in cases of self-employed or fixed salary persons, depending upon the age of the deceased.
(Paras 24, 29)
Compensation — Consortium
Compensation towards loss of consortium is payable not only to the spouse but also to children and parents under the heads of spousal, parental and filial consortium, as recognised in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram.
(Paras 25, 30)
Compensation — Just compensation — Power of Tribunal
The Tribunal and the Appellate Court are empowered to award just compensation, even exceeding the amount claimed, and should not be constrained by technicalities when determining compensation for loss of life.
(Paras 26, 30)
Liability — Owner and insurer
Where negligence of the offending vehicle is established and the vehicle is admittedly insured, the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
(Paras 32–33)
RATIO DECIDENDI
In motor accident claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence can be inferred on the basis of FIR, inquest report and other public documents applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities, even in the absence of eye-witnesses or charge-sheet, and just compensation must be determined by applying the multiplier method with future prospects and consortium in accordance with settled Supreme Court precedents.
No comments:
Post a Comment