Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence of eye witness of accident in motor accident claim petition when said witness was relative of claimant?

Second witness of the claimant is Balasaheb Bongane CW-3. He states that he was proceeding on his motorcycle and witnessed the offending jeep dashed against motor cycle of the deceased Dattarao. He states that, he noted jeep number and informed claimant no.3-Shailesh regarding the incident. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is relative of the claimants. He states that he noted number of offending vehicle after getting a pen from the owner of sugar cane juice shop. He states that he did not felt necessary to accompany deceased to the Hospital or he never informed police chowki or doctor regarding the vehicle number or incident. He never visited the police or gave his statement to the police. The Certified copy of his statement recorded in S.C.C. No.457 of 2018 is also placed on record of the Tribunal at Exhibit 15, wherein he states that he came to know about vehicle number from the mob gathered at the spot of accident. If the aforesaid evidence is taken into account, it is difficult to believe that accident occurred in presence of CW-3. Pertinently, CW-1 admits in his cross-examination that vehicle owner bears surname Karhale as claimants and he is resident of the village which is at a distance of 30 kilometers from village of the claimants. He admits that he had received information as to owner of the vehicle, but never disclosed it to any one prior to filing of the complaint. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether motor accident claim tribunal should rely on evidence of witness who is declared hostile in criminal court relating to same accident?

Mr. Choudhary, submits that evidence of eye witness is absolutely unreliable. They are got up witnesses. Perusal of evidence of CW 2 Santosh shows that he runs sugarcane juice shop nearby the place of accident and claims himself to be an eye witness. However, during his cross- examination he admitted that he cannot read and write. There is no provision of electric light at the spot of accident. He did not disclose offending vehicle number to any one till police approached him. He cannot tell as to whether it was head on collision between two vehicles as he was at the distance. All these admissions coupled with fact that he turned hostile before the criminal court makes his statement unreliable.

{Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in motor accident case when police report was lodged against unknown vehicle?

 The burden of proof is on the claimants. Same may be discharged on preponderance of probabilities. The insurer may lead independent evidence in disproof of the claim or it may point out that the evidence relied on is inherently improbable and the Tribunal, therefore, ought not to have acted on it. {Para 14}

15. The Tribunal, in the present case, has simply relied on the factum of filing of charge sheet against the tractor driver. Admittedly, the report of the accident was lodged against unknown vehicle. It is only after three weeks a person comes forward claiming to have had witnessed the accident. He recalled of the accident only on having seen the hoarding depicting the picture of the deceased - Sandip. According to the alleged eye witness, some person had gathered on the spot of accident. Had it really been so, involvement of the offending tractor could have come to light immediately, i.e., on the same day of the accident. Same suggests that no person had witnessed the accident. The conduct of the alleged eye witness - Atul Gade in coming forward after three weeks of the accident, is unnatural and does not stand to reason. He was residing at a nearby village. On having seen such an accident, he left the place without intimating the same to anyone else. Realising to have had witnessed the accident only on having seen the hoarding and picture of the deceased, leads this Court to observe that this person is a got up witness only with a view to earn the compensation. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to rely on the evidence of this witness.

16. There is no other evidence in proof of involvement of the tractor in question. The Tribunal ought not to have allowed the claim petition merely relying on such police papers namely, charge-sheet, seen of accident panchnama and post mortem notes. This Court has, therefore, every reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. In view of this Court, the evidence fell short to make out case even on preponderance of probabilities.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1342 of 2021

Decided On: 31.01.2022

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Tilottam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.G. Avachat, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1303/2022.

Print Page