MATHEW ALEXANDER v. MOHAMMED SHAFI & Anr.

HELD: 1.1 The High Court made observations which are in the nature of findings while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report impugned before the High Court. Further, the observations of the High Court to the effect that the car driven by the appellant’s son, was being driven rashly; that the car had gone astray to the wrong side; that the possibility that the driver of the car had driven the car after consuming alcohol cannot be ruled out; that rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the car is patent and that this is a clear case in which the principle of res ispa loquitor applies, are in the nature of findings which were wholly unnecessary to be made while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on further investigation of the case. It is on the basis of the said observations which are in the nature of findings that the High Court has quashed the report made pursuant to further investigation by opining that the incident is attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the Alto car. The opinions expressed which are in the nature of findings while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on a further investigation of the case and thereby quashing the same is, not a correct and proper approach adopted by the High Court. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside. [Para 8][1088-D-H; 1089-A]

1.2. Insofar as the claim petition filed by the appellant is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim petitions filed by the appellant or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove MATHEW ALEXANDER v. MOHAMMED SHAFI AND ANR. 1085 negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as the case may be, in causing the accident. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits. If the proof of negligence on the part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not established then, in that event, the claim petition would be disposed of accordingly. [Para 9] [1089-B-D]

1.3. It is for the appellant to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry in the petition filed by him seeking compensation on account of death of his son in the said accident. Thus, the opinion in the final report would not have a bearing on the claim petition for the said reasons. This is because the appellant is seeking compensation for the death of his son in the accident which occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry, causing the accident on the said date. In the claim petitions filed by the dependents, in respect of the other passengers in the car who died in the accident, they have to similarly establish the negligence in accordance with law. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. [Paras 10 and 11][1090-A-C]