- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Motor Accident Claimant Not...
Motor Accident Claimant Not Required To Prove Ownership Of Driver Over Offending Vehicle: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Drishti Yadav
8 Aug 2022 9:30 AM GMT
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the test in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cases is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but 'preponderance of probabilities' and that a claimant is not required to prove ownership of the driver over the offending vehicle.The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Jain further added that the result of criminal case pending against the...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the test in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cases is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but 'preponderance of probabilities' and that a claimant is not required to prove ownership of the driver over the offending vehicle.
The bench comprising Justice Pankaj Jain further added that the result of criminal case pending against the alleged offender has no bearing on the claim petition seeking compensation, pending before the Claims Tribunal.
The court was dealing with an appeal by the Claimant against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar. The Claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for injuries suffered by the appellant in a motor-vehicular accident.
Relevant facts to the instant case include a claim petition according to which the appellant got hit due to respondent's rash and negligent driving. As a consequence of this, he incurred an expense of Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment.
Appellant's claim was dismissed by the Tribunal holding the best evidence having been withheld by him could not prove that the accident was caused by rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle or that the respondent had any concern with that motorcycle.
The High Court noted that in MACT cases, the test is of 'preponderance of probabilities' and Tribunal erred in completely brushing aside overwhelming evidence which can prove the accident.
Court further noted that suggestions put to the claimant and author of the FIR, make it clear that respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle is facing trial for rash and negligent driving qua the accident in question.
Thus, finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 is set aside. Similarly, finding on Issue No.2 which is consequential to finding on Issue No.1 is also erroneous and is set aside.
Moreover, the court noted that to claim compensation, the claimant is not required to prove ownership of the driver over the offending vehicle as the onus lies on the respondent.
So far as finding on Issue No.4 is concerned, the onus was on respondents. Moreover, in order to claim compensation, the claimant is not required to prove ownership of the driver over the offending vehicle. Consequently, the claim petition ought not have been dismissed by recording that claimant has failed to bring evidence on record to show that respondent No.1 has concern with the motor-cycle.
As a sequel of the discussion held herein above, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the award passed by the Tribunal. Further, the court remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide petition afresh.
Case Title : Mohinder Lal @ Mohinder Pal v. Ladi and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 217
