MACT CLAIMS:- Rule Of Evidence To Prove Charges In A Criminal Trial Cannot Be Used While Deciding Motor Accident Compensation Claims

MACT CLAIMS:- Rule Of Evidence To Prove Charges In A Criminal Trial Cannot Be Used While Deciding Motor Accident Compensation Claims

The Supreme Court in Janabai Dinkarrao Ghorpade v. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited observed that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application seeking motor accident compensation.

The facts in brief that gave rise to this Special Leave Petition are that the Bombay High Court had set aside an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.8,90,000/- along with interest @7% p.a. on the ground that neither the owner of the offending car nor the Insurance Company had examined the driver to prove that the offending car was not involved in the accident. 

The top court rejected this approach and allowed the appeal. It thus observed:

“We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.”

It further found the High Court’s approach inconsonant with the observations of the Constitutional Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. which was “..rendered when the appeal was pending before the High Court but since the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was accepted, there was no occasion for the High Court to examine the question of enhancement of compensation. We find that the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation particularly in respect of future prospects and other damages in terms of the judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution, we have decided to recompute the amount of compensation to be in tune with the constitution Bench Judgment.”