In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India set aside decisions by the Kerala High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), reaffirming that a reliable eyewitness in a motor accident case cannot be disregarded simply because their statement was not recorded by the police. The Court awarded ₹46,31,496 in compensation to the family of the deceased, Ikhbal, who was killed in a road accident in 2013.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an accident on June 10, 2013, in which Ikhbal, a clerk in the Registration Department, was fatally injured when his motorcycle was allegedly hit by a car driven by respondent no. 2. According to the appellants—Ikhbal’s widow, minor child, and parents—the car came from the opposite direction and collided with Ikhbal’s motorcycle near Mrala Junction in Kerala, leading to his death.
The MACT had earlier dismissed the claim, stating that the involvement of the car in the accident was not proven, a decision that was upheld by the Kerala High Court in 2019. The courts relied heavily on the argument that no witness could conclusively prove the car’s involvement and that the victim was negligent in attempting to overtake a bus just before the accident.
Supreme Court’s Observations
However, the Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, took a different stance. The key point of contention was whether the car driven by respondent no. 2 was involved in the accident. The court highlighted that one of the witnesses (PW-6), who was present at the scene, consistently testified to seeing the car hit Ikhbal’s motorcycle.
The Court held that the dismissal of this witness’s testimony solely because the police did not record it during their investigation was unjustified. The judgment stated, “A witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation.” The Court emphasized the principle of “preponderance of probability,” asserting that the standard of proof in motor accident cases does not require certainty beyond reasonable doubt.
Key Evidence and Findings
Several pieces of evidence pointed toward the car’s involvement in the accident. The Supreme Court noted:
– Damage to the car: The Mahazar (inspection report) of the vehicle involved showed significant damage to the front bumper, grill, and parking light, consistent with a collision.
– Eyewitness Testimonies: PW-6, an eyewitness, testified that he saw the accident happen and saw the car hit the motorcycle. Another witness (PW-2), the bus driver, mentioned that after hearing the sound of the collision, he was told by bystanders that the car had hit the motorcycle.
– Police Testimony (PW-5): The police officer who inspected the scene also confirmed damage to the car, further supporting the claim that the car had indeed been involved.
Based on the evidence, the Court held that the High Court and MACT had erred in disbelieving the witnesses and ignoring clear physical evidence that corroborated their statements.
Final Decision and Compensation
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and holding that Ikhbal’s death was caused by the negligence of the car’s driver. The Court awarded the appellants a total compensation of ₹46,31,496 with 9% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition. The court further directed that if the compensation was not paid within three months, the interest rate would rise to 12% per annum.
– The appellants were represented by senior advocate Mr. Thomas P. Joseph.
– Respondent no. 3, the insurance company, was represented by senior advocate Mr. Atul Nanda.
