Oral Evidence Led Before Tribunal Prevails Over Documentary Evidence in Determining Moter Accident Negligence

On July 5, 2013, the deceased, Yasinkhan Habibkhan Belim, was riding his motorcycle with a pillion rider when a Maruti Swift Car (No. GJ-11-AB-4038) allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with them.

Yasinkhan succumbed to his injuries. The claimants filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 238 of 2013.

The Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) and the owner/driver (Respondents No. 1 & 2) filed written statements contesting the claim.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Junagadh, dismissed the claim petition on January 5, 2019, primarily questioning the involvement of the car and the negligence of its driver.

The appellant challenged this dismissal before the High Court.

1. Whether the learned Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the non-involvement of the offending vehicle (Maruti Swift Car) despite evidence to the contrary.

2. Whether the Tribunal failed to correctly assess the issue of negligence by disregarding oral testimony in favor of documentary evidence.

The court relied on the principles of motor accident jurisprudence and the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596.

In claim petitions, Tribunals should accord greater weightage to oral evidence led before it rather than relying solely on contradictory documentary evidence or police records.

The High Court observed that the Tribunal's finding on the non-involvement of the vehicle was perverse and contrary to the record. The court noted that the Panchnama, the police charge-sheet against the driver, the oral testimony of the claimant, and the written statement filed by the driver/owner—wherein the involvement of the car was admitted—collectively established the vehicle's presence at the accident site.

Regarding negligence, the High Court found that the Tribunal erred by prioritizing documentary evidence over oral testimony. Applying the Chamundeswari principle, the Court held that the oral evidence provided by the claimant regarding the nature of the accident deserved more weight than the Tribunal had granted it. Consequently, the High Court determined the Tribunal's dismissal was unsustainable.

The matter is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter within six months from the date of the order, and the Registry is directed to return the Record and Proceedings (R&P) to the concerned Tribunal immediately.