After 23 years of a woman’s death in road accident, the Punjab and Haryana high court finally awarded Rs 10-lakh compensation to the aggrieved family. As per reports, the woman met with an accident near Punjab’s Lalru region in 1999.
BCCL
Jump To
Standard of proof below criminal, civil cases
The court observed that the standard of proof required to establish a case in an accident claims case is much below that of criminal and civil cases.
“In a criminal case, in order to have a conviction, the matter is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in a civil case the matter is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence, but in a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in a civil case. Undoubtedly, the inquiry before the tribunal is a summary inquiry and, therefore, does not require strict proof of liability,” the bench of justice Archana Puri observed.
Regarding this case, the bench noted that an FIR was lodged, the charge sheet was filed, and the car driver had fled away after causing the accident.
Woman was hit by car on NH
On February 9 1999, the accident victim, Tiliya Devi, was hit by a car while she was walking on the Chandigarh-Ambala highway near Lalru. The driver had fled from the spot.
Representational Image
The next day, Devi succumbed to accident injuries and left behind her husband, a migrant labourer, and three children.
The MACT had dismissed the compensation claim by the family, holding that it could not establish that the death resulted from a motor vehicle accident.
Gaps in the family’s case
The court, however, recorded some glaring gaps in the family’s case, including the fact that the husband told the cops that he didn’t know about the vehicle number. But, the court said, “…the testimony of this witness is not to be read singularly. One cannot lose sight of the fact that appellants-claimants have a rustic background.”
Click Here: plastic injection molding
“However, there are other material facts, coming on record, which have bearing on establishment of the accident and the manner of causing of the same as well as involvement of the vehicle in question,” the bench recorded.
It added that the tribunal doubted the legitimacy of the challan simply based on gaps/discrepancies in the husband’s testimony.
“However, this is not fair. The learned tribunal stretched itself too far,” the bench said, adding that it was accepted that the investigation report, FIR and charge sheet were not conclusive evidence but had a persuasive value.
Car driver, owner and insurer to jointly compensate
The high court has now awarded the family a Rs 10.41-lakh compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from the filing of claim until its realisation.
The car driver, owner and insurer have been jointly held liable to pay the compensation by the court.
For more on news, sports, and current affairs from around the world, please visit Indiatimes News.