P&H HC Sets Aside ₹65-Lakh Award To Widow And 3 Children, Finding Insured Pickup’s Involvement Unproved

Malkit Kaur and her three children filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Raghubir Singh in a road accident on 25 May 2018.

The FIR initially referred to an unidentified vehicle; the claimants later alleged that a Mahindra Bolero Pickup insured by the appellant had caused the accident.

The Tribunal awarded ₹65,02,792 with interest at 7.5% per annum and held the driver, owner and insurer jointly and severally liable.

The insurer appealed, disputing the vehicle’s involvement.

Under Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a motor accident claim is determined on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt; however, claimants must still establish the involvement of the particular vehicle against whose driver, owner and insurer they claim.

The Court relied on Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 5 SCC 656; and Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (2020) 13 SCC 486, for the applicable standard of proof.

Section 114, illustration (g), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits an adverse inference in appropriate circumstances, but such an inference cannot replace foundational proof of vehicle involvement.

Under United India Insurance Company Limited v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581, fraud can vitiate proceedings, but an allegation of fraud requires cogent evidence; suspicion alone is insufficient.

The Court found the insured vehicle’s involvement unproved. The initial account identified only an unknown car, while the specific identification of the Bolero emerged about two and a half months after the accident.

The eyewitness’s account was inconsistent about when and whether he had disclosed the registration number, and the police had prepared an untraced report after failing to identify the vehicle.

The toll-plaza record established that the Bolero passed through the plaza but did not connect it to the collision; nor could the driver’s and owner’s non-appearance supply the missing proof.

Although these circumstances raised serious doubt, they did not, without firmer evidence, establish that the claimants had deliberately fabricated evidence or colluded.

It reversed the Tribunal’s finding on vehicle involvement, allowed the insurer’s appeal, set aside the award and dismissed the claim petition.

Any undistributed amount deposited by the insurer was to be refunded with accrued interest in accordance with law; the treatment of any amount already disbursed was left to appropriate orders based on the relevant circumstances and applicable law.