Non-Examination of Eye-Witness Not Fatal to Motor Accident Claim: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reverses Tribunal’s Award Rejecting Compensation

On 6th March 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdial Kaur vs. Kuldip Singh & Ors., FAO-2340-2006 (O&M), delivered a significant ruling holding that non-examination of eyewitnesses is not fatal to a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Justice Sudepti Sharma set aside the dismissal of the claim petition by the Tribunal and awarded compensation in favour of the appellant, reiterating that accident claim cases are governed by the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities and not by strict rules of criminal evidence.

The case arose out of a tragic accident dated 22nd January 1999, wherein Lakhbir Singh, while riding a bicycle, was hit by a tractor-trolley driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, leading to his death. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that there was no direct eyewitness to the accident and that the driver of the offending tractor had been acquitted in a criminal case arising from the same accident. The Court noted that the Tribunal overlooked the settled principle that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not bound by strict technicalities. The Court observed, “It is a well-established principle that non-examination of an eyewitness is not fatal to a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, as strict rules of evidence do not apply to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings.”

Justice Sharma noted that the accident was promptly reported to the police, resulting in an FIR which clearly attributed the accident to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. The post-mortem report corroborated the occurrence of an accident. The learned Judge emphasized that “in accident claim cases, the focus should not be on the non-examination of certain ‘best’ eyewitnesses but rather on assessing the evidence available on record based on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities.” Relying on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Sunita vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation, AIR 2020 SC 514, the Court underscored that the absence of an eyewitness cannot be taken as a ground to deny compensation when the documentary and circumstantial evidence point towards negligence.

Dealing with the Tribunal’s reliance on the acquittal of respondent No.1 in the connected criminal trial, the Court held that such an acquittal cannot ipso facto lead to the rejection of a claim petition. The Court categorically held that “the standard of proof in a criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the standard before the Claims Tribunal is the preponderance of probabilities,” referring to the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297. The Tribunal was also found to have committed a legal error in concluding that respondent No.1 lacked a valid driving licence. The Court applied the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2024 INSC 840, holding that a driver possessing a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) licence is permitted to drive a transport vehicle of gross weight less than 7500 kg without requiring a separate endorsement. The Court observed, “In view of the settled legal position, the finding of the Tribunal that the driver was not holding a valid licence is legally unsustainable.”

The Court then proceeded to quantify compensation in accordance with the judgments in Sarla Verma vs. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, considering factors like age, income, future prospects, and conventional heads including filial consortium. The monthly income of the deceased was assessed as ₹1,900/- as per the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time, future prospects were added at 40%, and the multiplier of 17 was applied. The Court computed the total compensation at ₹3,55,320/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.

The Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount within two months and instructed the Tribunal to disburse the same to the appellant after verifying bank account details. In closing, the Court also appreciated the assistance rendered by Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate, and directed the Insurance Company to release his professional fee as per prior directions of the Court.

Date of Decision: 6th March 2025