Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed under Section of the (‘MV Act’) to challenge the order dated 20-02-2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Dhari Singh, J. said that the Tribunal had rightly assessed that the driver (appellant) was driving in a rash and negligent manner which is why there was no scope for contributory negligence, and held that respondent 2 along with the driver were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to respondent 1.
Background
As per the facts of the present matter, on 01-06-2004, respondent 1 was riding his Chetak Scooter along with his brother-in-law from Sangam Vihar to Subhash Camp. When respondent 1 reached near a shop named Munna Auto Welder in Devli, a scooter (offending vehicle) being driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with his vehicle.
Resultantly, respondent 1 fell from his scooter and sustained grievous head injuries. He was immediately taken to the Batra Hospital for his treatment. Thereafter, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered at Sangam Vihar Police Station and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the driver under Sections / of the (‘IPC’).
Subsequently, respondent 1 filed a claim before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident. In the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner which caused grievous injuries to respondent 1 and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,72,922/- with interest at 9% to be payable by the driver.
Aggrieved by this decision, the driver filed the present appeal.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that these issues arose for adjudication in the present matter:
Whether respondent 1 was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
Whether respondent 2, allegedly being a registered owner of the offending vehicle, be made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to respondent 1.
Issue 1:
The Court noted the driver’s argument wherein he stated that respondent 1 was driving his vehicle rashly as he failed to see the offending vehicle coming from the opposite direction, despite being at a reasonable distance of 10 feet, which indicated that respondent 1 was driving his vehicle in a high speed and contributed to the accident.
The Court relied on Prem Lal Anand v. Narendra Kumar wherein it was observed that negligence cannot be determined by way of a strict formula, but by looking into the facts and circumstances of a case. Moreover, in case of contributory negligence, it is necessary for the courts to determine whether both parties had the means to exercise reasonable care, thereby avoiding the accident.
The Court noted the driver’s contention that respondent 1 was neither having a valid driving license nor was he wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, which amounted to contributory negligence.
Further, the Court perused Mohd. Siddique v. National Insurance Co. and found it pertinent to mention that driving a vehicle without a license was punitive as per the provisions of the MV Act. However, it was said that the same itself does not lead in finding negligence with respect to the accident.
The Court stated that mere absence of driving license and vehicular insurance did not amount to contributory negligence on part of respondent 1 as the same had no impact on the accident and the grievous injuries caused to him. The Court also acknowledged that wearing a helmet played a significant role in the present matter because respondent 1 suffered grievous head injuries in the accident.
The Court found it appropriate to state that the strict principles of evidence were inapplicable to claims filed under the MV Act and that the requirement of standard of proof was one of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as had been reiterated in a plethora of cases including Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand .
Thus, the Court opined that respondent 1 could not be said to be rash and negligent in driving his vehicle as per the preponderance of probabilities. The Court also perused the impugned order and stated that the Tribunal had rightly adjudicated the issue of negligence.
Issue 2:
The Court observed that the intent of the legislature was that the registered owner, as reflected in the records of the Registering Authority, should primarily be considered as the ‘owner’ for the purposes of the MV Act, except in cases of minor or an agreement of hire-purchase, lease, or hypothecation, as explicitly stated in Section of the .
The Court perused the relevant documents on record which revealed that the offending vehicle along with the registration documents were delivered to the driver by respondent 2 and the receipt dated 19-12-1998 had the signature of the driver. However, the Court mentioned that the said document seemed vague as it held no authenticity of the contents mentioned therein and there was no other document pertaining to the alleged sale transaction between the driver and respondent 2.
Further, the Court perused the Certificate of Registration which revealed that the registration of the offending vehicle was transferred to respondent 2, thereby officiating him as the registered owner. The Court said that since there were no other documents on record, it was evident that respondent 2 was the owner of the offending vehicle.
The Court perused the testimonies of the witnesses and observed that the employer-employee relationship between the driver and respondent 2 could not be proved as the same had been utterly contradicted by the parties and no such document was placed on record to show that on the day of the accident, the driver was driving in the course of employment or under the direction of respondent 2.
The Court said that even though possession and control of the offending vehicle was with the driver, it does not mean that the registered owner was not liable for the same only because of non-possession and non-control. Thus, the Court held both the driver and respondent 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 18,59,466/- to respondent 1 within four weeks.
Lastly, the Court held that the Tribunal had rightly assessed that the driver was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner because of which there arose no scope of contributory negligence on the part of respondent 1.
[Mohd Sabuddin v. Mohd Zakir, MAC.APP. 763 of 2024, Decided on 08-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant — Advocate Manpreet Kaur
For Respondents — Advocate S.D. Wadhwa, party-in-person
Section / of the
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .