Content Provider | Supreme Court of India |
---|---|
e-ISSN | 30484839 |
Language | English |
Access Restriction | NDLI |
Subject Keyword | Motor Vehicle Accident MACT claim cases standard of proof |
Content Type | Text |
Resource Type | Law Judgement |
Jurisdiction | India |
Case(s) Referred | Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 |
Case Type | Appeal |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Disposal Nature | Appeal Allowed |
Headnote | Motor Vehicle Accident – Victim-deceased was travelling in acar along with his friend, respondent no. 2 and two other occupants– Respondent no. 2 (owner of the car) was driving the car at night,when a truck came from the opposite side and struck the car as aresult of which all the occupants suffered injuries – They were allrushed to the hospital – Victim was discharged – However, he keptexperiencing one after another medical complication and eventuallydied due to injuries – Victim-deceased’s dependents filed a claimpetition for Rs. 60,94,000/- and alleged that victim died due to therash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 – The Tribunal reliedupon the statement of the eye-witness, AW-3, according to whomrespondent no. 2 was driving car at a very fast speed when itovertook a vehicle and collided head-on against the oncoming truck– The Tribunal assigned liability for the accident upon therespondents and partly allowed the claim petition with acompensation of Rs.16,08,000/- – The High Court set aside theTribunal award and dismissed the claim petition – The High Courtdisbelieved AW-3 and found him unreliable witness – According tothe High Court, AW-3 had failed to report the accident to thejurisdictional police and he was apparently introduced by theclaimants only to seek compensation – Also, it was held that theassertion of AW-3 that he took the injured to the hospital was notproved – Further, the FIR was lodged by the owner-cum-driver,respondent no. 2, who would not have done so had he been at faultor driving rashly – On appeal, held: Some material facts haveescaped notice of the High Court – The FIR was not registered bythe owner-cum-driver of the car as assumed by the High Court – Itwas registered by one person ‘P’, who had not witnessed the accidentand lodged on basis of the hearsay information – Further, theinformant had some closeness with the owner-cum-driver of the car– His version is hearsay and may be influenced by respondent no.2and thus, cannot be relied upon – The contents of the FIR as well asthe statement of AW-3 leave no room to doubt that the injured weretaken to the hospital by private persons (and not by the Police) –There is nothing on record to suggest that the Police reached thesite of the accident or carried the injured to the hospital – AW-3 isneither related to the deceased nor was he remotely connected tothe family of the deceased – The statement of AW-3, therefore,acquires significance as, according to him, he brought the injuredin his car – It is quite natural that such a person who hadaccompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid,could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodgethe FIR – The High Court ought not to have drawn any adverseinference against the witness for his failure to report the matter topolice – Further, failure of the respondents to cross-examine thesolitary eye-witness, AW-3 must lead to an inference of tacitadmission on their part – Also, the fact that respondent no. 2 chosenot to depose in support of what he had pleaded in his writtenstatement, further suggests that he himself was at fault – The HighCourt failed to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles ofevidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial areinapplicable in MACT claim cases – The standard of proof in suchmatters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyondreasonable doubt – Therefore, the judgment of the High Court isset aside and the appellants are entitled to compensation as awardedby the Tribunal, besides 40% addition in the annual income of thedeceased towards ‘future prospects’. |
Judge | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant |
Neutral Citation | 2020 INSC 685 |
Petitioner | Anita Sharma & Ors. |
Respondent | The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. |
SCR | [2020] 12 S.C.R. 1118 |
Judgement Date | 2020-12-08 |
Case Number | 4010 |
National Digital Library of India (NDLI) is a virtual repository of learning resources which is not just a repository with search/browse facilities but provides a host of services for the learner community. It is sponsored and mentored by Ministry of Education, Government of India, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT). Filtered and federated searching is employed to facilitate focused searching so that learners can find the right resource with least effort and in minimum time. NDLI provides user group-specific services such as Examination Preparatory for School and College students and job aspirants. Services for Researchers and general learners are also provided. NDLI is designed to hold content of any language and provides interface support for 10 most widely used Indian languages. It is built to provide support for all academic levels including researchers and life-long learners, all disciplines, all popular forms of access devices and differently-abled learners. It is designed to enable people to learn and prepare from best practices from all over the world and to facilitate researchers to perform inter-linked exploration from multiple sources. It is developed, operated and maintained from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur.
Learn more about this project from here.
NDLI is a conglomeration of freely available or institutionally contributed or donated or publisher managed contents. Almost all these contents are hosted and accessed from respective sources. The responsibility for authenticity, relevance, completeness, accuracy, reliability and suitability of these contents rests with the respective organization and NDLI has no responsibility or liability for these. Every effort is made to keep the NDLI portal up and running smoothly unless there are some unavoidable technical issues.
Ministry of Education, through its National Mission on Education through Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT), has sponsored and funded the National Digital Library of India (NDLI) project.
Sl. | Authority | Responsibilities | Communication Details |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education |
Sanctioning Authority | https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives |
2 | Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project | https://www.iitkgp.ac.in |
3 | National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur | The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project | Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in |
4 | Project PI / Joint PI | Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project |
Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon |
5 | Website/Portal (Helpdesk) | Queries regarding NDLI and its services | support@ndl.gov.in |
6 | Contents and Copyright Issues | Queries related to content curation and copyright issues | content@ndl.gov.in |
7 | National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club) | Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach | clubsupport@ndl.gov.in |
8 | Digital Preservation Centre (DPC) | Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books | dpc@ndl.gov.in |
9 | IDR Setup or Support | Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops | idr@ndl.gov.in |