Case Title: Rajwati @ Rajjo vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. | (SC) 1016 | CA 8179 OF 2022 | 9 December 2022 | Justices Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat
Summary
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the same stringent rules of evidence do not apply in motor vehicle accident compensation cases. The Rajasthan High Court rejected the deceased’s salary certificate and pay slip, reducing the compensation awarded to the claimants. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is recognized as a beneficial legislation, and the Tribunal’s responsibility is to award just and fair compensation, provided the actual occurrence of the accident is established. The court awarded the claimants Rs. 20,98,655, confirming the irrefutable evidence of the deceased’s income.
About the case
In motor vehicle accident compensation cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the same stringent rules of evidence that govern criminal trials do not apply. The Rajasthan High Court, in this instance, rejected the salary certificate and pay slip of the deceased solely on the basis that the individual issuing these documents was not examined before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, thereby reducing the compensation awarded to the claimants by the tribunal.
A bench of Apex Court justices Krishna Murari and S. Ravindra Bhat, in response to an appeal filed by the claimants, expressed dissent with the High Court’s approach and stated: “In the context of motor accident claims, the burden of proof is not placed upon the claimants, as it is in criminal trials.” This distinction should be duly considered by the Court. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is widely recognised as a beneficial piece of legislation. Consequently, in compensation cases, the Tribunal’s responsibility would be to award just and fair compensation, provided that the actual occurrence of the accident has been established.
Motor accident compensation cases are not subject to the same stringent rules of evidence that govern criminal trials, as established by this Court in the cases of Sunita (Supra) and Kusum Lata (Supra). Specifically, the preponderance of probability standard of proof is relevant here, as opposed to the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard that is rigorously applied in criminal proceedings. According to the court, the claimants’ documents are irrefutable evidence of the deceased’s income, and the statements of the deceased’s spouse and colleagues corroborate this. The court, in granting the appeal, awarded the claimants compensation amounting to Rs. 20,98,655.
