To expect an eyewitness to be present in every accident case is “far from reality”, the Dharwad bench of the Karnataka high court has observed, while dismissing the appeal filed by an insurance company.
Younus and Shabbir Ahmed, who run pan stalls, had claimed compensation on the ground that on August 27, 2013, a luggage vehicle had hit them near Mishrikoti Kadankoppa in Hubballi taluk, while they were proceeding along the Karwar-Hubballi road.
They were awarded Rs 77,350 and nearly Rs 1.2 lakh in compensation, respectively, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi, on August 30, 2017.
Shriram General Insurance, the insurer of the vehicle, appealed against the order in the high court, claiming the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case and that there were no eyewitnesses to support the occurrence of the accident itself.
After perusing the material on record, Justice V Shrishananda said the tribunal had taken into consideration the police records which sufficiently indicated the involvement of offending vehicle. The judge also said vehicle driver Suresh had also been charge sheeted for the offence of negligent driving.
“If the accident takes place in a busy area or in an urban area, it is easy to secure eyewitness to the incident. But when the accident has occurred in the rural area or a road which was not that busy, then procuring an eyewitness is a difficult task for more than one reason… Under such circumstances, expecting an eyewitness to be present in each and every case is far from reality,” Justice Shrishananda said.
