Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that the accident occurred and that the appropriate standard of proof is pre‑ponderance of probability, rendering the High Court’s reversal erroneous.

Summary

The husband of the appellant, Constable Jawala Ram, died when a bus owned by Himachal Road Transport Corporation allegedly reversed without sounding a horn, crushing him. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred, based on the FIR, post‑mortem report indicating brain injury, and an eye‑witness, and awarded compensation. The Himachal High Court reversed the Tribunal, doubting the post‑mortem findings and suggesting the police may have fabricated the FIR. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the Tribunal was not bound by pleadings, that the standard of proof in such claims is pre‑ponderance of probability, and that there was no material to support the High Court’s conjectures. Consequently, the High Court judgment was set aside and the Tribunal’s award reinstated.

Issues considered

Whether the burden of proof in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 rests on the respondents to disprove the occurrence of an accident.
Whether the standard of proof applicable is pre‑ponderance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the Tribunal can disregard pleadings and decide based on the evidence before it.
Whether the High Court erred in overturning the Tribunal’s finding of accident and negligence.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 106
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988s. 166

Subjects

Motor Vehicles ActSection 166claim petitioncompensationburden of proofpre‑ponderance of probabilityevidenceaccidentnegligencetribunalhigh court reversal

Judgment

(2009] 6 S.C.R. 362

)<
....
A SIMLA DEVI & ORS.
v.
HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2538 of 2009)
APRIL 15, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s.166 - Death on account of
injuries allegedly sustained in a blJs accident caused due to
; -
c rash and negligent driving of the bus by respondent no.2 and
negligent conduct of respondent no.3-conductor- Deceased
was a constable - Claim for compensation - Respondents
denied and disputed the factum of bus accident and pleaded
false implication by police officials - Tribunal did not believe
D the respondents' version and accepted the claim of appellant
...:. High Court reversed the judgment of Tribunal - Justification
of - Held: Not justified - On facts, there was absolutely no
reason to falsely implicate respondent nos.2 and 3 - Fact that
FIR had been lodged in relation to an accident could not be
E ignored - The claimants were merely to establish their case
on the touchstone of preponderance of probability - Standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied -
Judgment of High Court to a great extent was based on
conjectures and surmises - While holding that the police
F might have implicated the respondents, no reason was
assigned in support thereof - No material brought on record
was referred to by the High Court for the said purpose -
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106.

The husband of appellant no.1, a police constable,
G died on account of injuries allegedly sustained by him in
a bus accident caused due to rash and negligent driving • ...
of the bus by respondent no.2 and negligent conduct of
respondent no.3-conductor. Respondent no.1 owned the
bus in question.
H 362
BIMLA DEVI & ORS. v. HIMACHAL ROAD 363
TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS.
Appellants filed claim petition for grant of A
compensation in terms of s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. Respondents denied and disputed the factum of
bus accident. According to them, the deceased had died
the previous evening and finding the dead body of a
person wrapped in a blanket lying at some distance from B
the bus, they informed the police personnel, but they were
.- ~ falsely implicated.

The Tribunal did not believe the respondents' version
that the police officers had fabricated a false case arid C
accepted the claim of the appellant. On appeal, the High
Court reversed the judgment passed by the Tribunal
holding that the deceased might have died in some other
accident and that the police officials had wrongly lodged
the FIR against the respondents. Hence the present
appeal. D

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. While dealing with a claim petition in terms
of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal E
stricto sensu is not bound by the pleadings of the parties;
its function being to determine the amount of fair
compensation in the event an accident has taken place
by reason of negligence of that driver of a motor vehicle.
It is true that occurrence of an accident having regard to
the provisions contained in Section 166 of the Act is a F
sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that
would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that
death of the claimant's predecessor had taken place by
reason of an accident caused by a motor vehicle, the
same would be ignored only on the basis of a post G
mortem report vis-a-vis the averments made in a claim
petition. [Para 12] [369-C, DJ

2.1. In the present case, the deceased was a
Constable. Death took place near a police station. The H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A post mortem report clearly suggests that the deceased
died of a brain injury. The place of accident is not far from
the police station. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the
story of the driver of the bus that he slept in the bus and
in the morning found a dead body wrapped in a blanket.
B If the death of a constable has taken place earlier, it is
wholly unlikely that his dead body in a small town would
remain undetected throughout the night particularly > ...
when it was lying at a bus stand and near a police
station. In such an even~, the court can presume that the
c police officers themselves should have taken possession
of the dead body. [Para 13] [369-E, F, G]

2.2. The Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the basis
that apparently there was absolutely no reason to falsely
implicate the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Claimant was not
D at the place of occurrence. She, therefore, might not be
aware of the details as to how the accident took place but
the fact that the First Information Report had been lodged
in relation to an accident could not have been ignored.
Some discrepancies in the evidences of the claimant's
E witnesses might have occurred but the core question
before the Tribunal and consequently before the High
Court was as to whether the bus in question was
involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of
determining the said issue, the Court was required to
F apply the principle underlying burden of proof in terms
of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as
to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been
found at the spot at such an early hour, which was
required to be proved by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. '
G [Para 14) [369-H; 370-A, B, C]

2.3. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has
rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was
necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an
accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner
H
,

BIMLA DEVI & ORS. v. HIMACHAL ROAD 365
" >< TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS.
may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The A
claimants were merely to establish their case on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court
should have taken into consideration the respective B
stories set forth by both the parties. [Para 15] [370-H; 371-
·- ' A, B, C]

2.4. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent
is based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that
the police might have implicated the respondents, no
c
reason has been assigned in support thereof. No material
brought on record has been referred to for the said
purpose. [Para 16] [370-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. D
2538 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 22.08.2005 Passed by
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in FAO No. 127
of 1999.
E
Dinesh Verma and Rajat Sharma (for AP. Mohanty) for
the Appellant(s).
~- Himinder Lal, Vimlesh Kumar, Rishi Maheshwari, Shally
Bhasin Maheshwari, Vikramjeet Banerjee, Anne Mathew and
F
Raj Kumar Kaushik for the Respondent(s).

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
{~ ~
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order G
dated 22.8.2005 passed by the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh, Shimla in FAO No.127 of 1999 whereby and
whereunder an appeal preferred against a judgment and award
dated 28.10.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-II [MACT (I), Nahan] in MAC Petition No.21-NU2 of H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
y
~

A 1997, was set aside.

3. One ,Jawala Ram, husband of the first appellant herein,
was a Police Constable. He was posted at Police Station
Dharampur. On 11.2.1997 at about 7 or 8 am, he was standing
near the shop of one Chand Kishore. A bus bearing registration
B
No.HP-14-3596 owned by the first respondent was parked
there. The second respondent Vijay Kumar was the driver and
;
..,
the third respondent Om Dutt was the conductor of the
aforementioned bus. Allegedly, the driver of the bus, Vijay
Kumar, reversed.the bus without blowing any horn as a result
c whereof Jawala Ram died on the spot. Allegedly, conductor
also did not bother to check whether any person was standing
behind the bus.

4. Respondents, however, denied and disputed
D occurrence of the said accident. According to them, the
deceased died the previous evening and finding the dead body
of a person wrapped in a blanket lying at some distance from
the bus; they informed the police personnel, whereafter the
driver was falsely implicated.
E
5. The factum of accident, thus, being denied and disputed;
one of the issues framed by learned Tribunal on the claim
application filed by the appellants herein for grant of
compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles ....
Act, 1988 was:
F
"Whether Sh. Jawala Ram died on 11.2.1997 near
Dharampur, due to rash and negligent of Bus No.HP-14-
3596 by respondent No.2 and negligent conduct of
respondent No.3 as alleged?"
G
6. The learned Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence " "'1

adduced on behalf of the appellant and the first respondent,
opined:

(1) Death of Jawala Ram on 11.2.1997 at Dharampur
H was not disputed.
SIMLA DEVI & ORS. v. HIMACHAL ROAD 367
TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
(2) First Information Report was registered at Police A
Station, Dharampur on the said date also stands
admitted.

(3) Even if the allegations made in the First Information
Report are not taken into consideration, the death 8
of Jawala Ram in an accident stood proved by the

- ~
post mortem examination report (Exhibit-PY) in
terms whereof he had died due to brain injury.

(4) Death of Jawala Ram in an accident has also been
proved by Shri Dharam Pal (PW3) who was an c
eye-witness to the occurrence.

7. The driver and conductor of the bus admitted their
- presence at the scene of occurrence. Vijay Kumar (RW1)
alleged that he had seen the dead body wrapped in a blanket D
behind the bus when he was still to start the bus. The Tribunal
did not find his statement to be reliable. Bhawani Dutt (RW2)
did not support the version of the respondent as he stated that
the driver and conductor of the bus had gone to the police
station and the people gathered there stated that someone had
E
been lying dead. He, according to the Tribunal, also could not
deny positively that the accident had not taken place because
of the use of the bus in question.

It is difficult to believe that the Police Officers would
fabricate a case against the respondents. The learned Tribunal F
opined:

-
~ ~
"Therefore, keeping in view the statement of PW, Dharam
Pal, the death of Jawala Ram because of injuries, the
presence of the Bus of the respondents and place and G
time of the occurrence and the other circumstances of the
case, I am convinced that the death of Jawala Ram took
place after being hit by the Bus when it was being reversed
in backward directions. Once, it is so held, the
respondents, driver and conductor shall have to be held
H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A negligent in reversing the bus in backward directions
without blowing horn or whistle or giving indication to the
persons standing there. Had the driver and conductor of
the bus taken care to blow horn or to forewarn the persons
standing there before reversing the bus, Jawala Ram, who
B was 5tated to be standing behind the bus would not have
been crushed. Consequently, it is held that Jawala Ram
had died because of the injuries sustained by him in the
course of Bus accident because of rashness and
neg_ligence of the respondents, driver and conductor of th_e
c Bus."

8. The said issue, on the basis of the aforementioned
findings, was decided in favour of the appellant.

On an appeal preferred therefrom by the respondents
D before the High Court, however, the said finding of fact was
reversed by it, inter alia, opining:

"In the post mortem report there is no details of any such
crush injuries of tyre marks in fact the thorax and abdomen
region have been found by and large normal. Even to the
E
muscle bones and joints there are no serious injuries. The
main injury is to the head only. It is not the case of the
claimants that only the head of the deceased was crushed
under the tyres. Therefore, the version of the claimants is
difficult to believe." ·
F
The High Court furthermore held that the deceased might
have died in some accident and the Police officials wrongly

.
lodged the _first information report against the driver of the bus.

G Appellant is, thus, before us.
....
9. Mr. Dinesh Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, would submit that having regard to the reasons
assigned by the learned Tribunal, the High Court must be held
to have committed serious error in passing the impugned
H
.. )(
SIMLA DEVI & ORS. v. HIMACHAL ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPN. & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

. judgment.
369

A

. _j 10. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, however, supported the judgment of the
High Court.

11. The post mortem report clearly stated of a head injury. B

- ~ 12. While dealing with a claim petition in terms of Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a Tribunal stricto sensu
is not bound by the pleadings of t,he parties; its function being
to determine the amount of fair compensation in the event an c
accident has taken place by reason of negligence of that driver
of a motor vehicle. It is true that occurrence of an accident
having regard to the provisions contained in Section 166 of the
Act is a sine qua non for entertaining a claim petition but that
would not mean that despite evidence to the effect that death D
·of the claimant's predecessor had taken place by reason of an
accident caused by a motor vehicle, the same would be ignored
only on the basis of a post mortem report vis-a-vis the
averments made in a claim petition.

13. The deceased was a Constable. Death took place E
near a police station. The post mortem report clearly suggests
that the deceased died of a brain injury. The place of accident
..... is not far from the police station. It is, therefore, difficult to
believe the story of the driver of the bus that he slept in the bus
and in the morning found a dead body wrapped in a blanket. If F
the death of a constable has taken place earlier, it is wholly
unlikely that his dead body in a small town like Dharampur would
remain undetected throughout the night particularly when it was
lying at a bus stand and near a police station. In such an event,
~ .. the court can presume that the police officers themselves should G
have taken possession of the dead body.
,,
14. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, has rightly
proceeded on the basis that apparently there was absolutely
no reason to falsely implicate the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A Claimant was not at the place of occurrence. She, therefore,
might not be aware of the details as to how the accident took
place but the fact that the First Information Report had been
lodged in relation to an accident could not have been ignored.
Some discrepancies in the evidences of the claimant's
B witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the
Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to
whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. >~
For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was
.required to apply the principle underlying burden 9f proof in
C terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence
Act as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been
found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to
be proved by the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken
D a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in
mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus
in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case
on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The
E standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have
been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have
taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both
the parties.

F 16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is
based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the
police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has
been assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record
has been referred to for the said purpose.

G 17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned • '
judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The
appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

H B.B.B. Appeal allowed.