The Supreme Court, in a judgment dated 18th December, held that, in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court is required to evaluate all issues in the case after thoroughly considering the entire body of evidence. The appeal under consideration was filed by the claimants, who challenged the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had set aside the award granted by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). In its award, the MACT had allowed the claim made by the appellants—who were the wife and son of the deceased, Chakradhar Dubey—and had directed the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,41,289, to be paid jointly and severally. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, who remarked that an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is akin to a first appeal, and the minimum expectation is for the appellate court to carefully assess the oral and documentary evidence presented before the MACT.
The appellants were represented by Advocate Girijesh Pandey, while the respondents were represented by AOR Nanita Sharma. According to the claimants, the deceased, Chakradhar Dubey, had been serving as an Assistant Post-Master at the Sarlanagar Post Office in Tehsil Maihar. On the day of the incident, Dubey was returning home in a friend’s car when it was struck by a truck being driven recklessly. This caused Dubey serious injuries, including a spinal fracture. He was hospitalized but later succumbed to his injuries. An FIR was registered in 2018 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code.
The claimant widow asserted that the accident was caused due to the reckless driving of the second respondent, who had been operating the truck owned by the third respondent. The widow informed the Superintendent of Police about the incident, and the claimants sought a compensation of Rs. 59,30,000. However, the Insurance Company contested the claim. After the High Court allowed the Insurance Company’s appeal, the claimants approached the Supreme Court for redress. The Court expressed surprise at the High Court’s cursory handling of the matter, wherein it had swiftly reversed the detailed award granted by the MACT.
The Bench noted that the High Court's order lacked a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, with only a brief mention of the testimony of PW-2 and no substantial discussion on other critical documents such as the final report (Exh.P-1), the FIR (Exh.P-2), the seizure memo of the vehicle (Exh.P-16), and the findings of the MACT. The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier rulings, such as Sudarsan Puhan vs. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty (2018), Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mamta (2016), and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar (2000), reaffirming that an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of a first appeal, similar to Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. It further emphasized that the High Court is legally obligated to address all issues of law and fact after reviewing all the evidence.
Given that the incident occurred in 2018, and six years had already passed, the Bench expressed concern that further delay would only exacerbate the suffering of the claimant family. The Court reiterated that in claim cases, when the accident’s occurrence or the involvement of the vehicle is in dispute, the claimant need only prove the incident on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. Applying this standard, the Bench concluded that the claimants had sufficiently demonstrated the involvement of the truck and car as per the incident.
The Court also rejected the Insurance Company’s allegation of collusion, finding no justification for the police to have falsely implicated the vehicle in the incident or to have wrongfully initiated prosecution against the driver. The Bench noted that if the Insurance Company suspected collusion, it should have raised the issue with higher police authorities or approached the court for an investigation. Furthermore, 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. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment and restoring the MACT's original award.
Cause Title: Geeta Dubey & Ors v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
