Objection to uncertified CCTV footage in a motor accident claim is waived if not raised before the tribunal, Karnataka High Court rules

On 14 October 2019, Ganesh Pujari was riding a motorcycle when it collided with a car owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2; he died from his injuries.

His dependants claimed compensation, alleging negligent driving by the car’s driver.

The Tribunal relied substantially on CCTV footage produced on a CD by the investigating officer, despite the absence of a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, and attributed 80% negligence to the deceased and 20% to the car driver.

It awarded ₹4,04,411, representing 20% of its assessed compensation of ₹20,22,056, with 6% interest.

The dependants appealed, challenging both the negligence apportionment and the adequacy of compensation.

Whether the Tribunal could rely on CCTV footage produced as secondary electronic evidence without a Section 65-B certificate, where no objection was raised when it was tendered.

Whether the Tribunal correctly apportioned contributory negligence between the deceased motorcyclist and the car driver.

Whether the compensation assessed by the Tribunal required enhancement apart from any adjustment arising from the negligence apportionment.

Under Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Claims Tribunal must determine just compensation through an inquiry that may follow summary procedure; negligence and contributory negligence are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires a certificate for secondary electronic evidence, while an objection to the mode of proof must ordinarily be raised when the evidence is tendered; where it is not raised, the objection may be treated as waived and cannot generally be raised for the first time on appeal.

The Court applied Sonu @ Amar v. State of Haryana, as considered alongside Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police and Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. State of Maharashtra.

Contributory negligence requires an act or omission that materially contributed to the accident, with a causal link between the conduct and the harm.

The Court also relied on Reena v. Managing Director, KSRTC and Rukmini v. N.C. Chandru concerning the evidentiary standard and the assessment of negligence in MACT proceedings.

The CD containing the CCTV footage was marked through the investigating officer, and the claimants did not object to its production at the Tribunal; the deceased’s wife also accepted that the footage could help establish the truth.

Applying the waiver principle, the Court held that the Section 65-B objection could not be raised for the first time in appeal and that the Tribunal was entitled to rely on the footage.

The footage and other evidence supported the finding that the motorcyclist was travelling against the permitted direction on a one-way road and without a helmet.

However, the Tribunal also found that the car was travelling at an extremely high speed; the driver fled the scene, the vehicle was later traced and seized, and a charge sheet had been filed against him.

Considering the conduct of both drivers and the causal contribution of their actions, the Court found the Tribunal’s 80:20 apportionment disproportionate and substituted an equal division of negligence.

It found no separate error in the Tribunal’s calculation of compensation under the various heads.

The Court apportioned negligence equally between the deceased and the car driver and awarded the claimants 50% of the Tribunal’s total assessment of ₹20,22,056—namely, ₹10,11,028—with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition until realisation.

Any compensation and interest already paid or deposited were to be deducted.

The Tribunal’s award was modified accordingly, with no order as to costs.