Bim la Devi ot her s v. Him achal Road Transport Corporat ion ot her

Mr. Neeraj Upr et y, Advocat e for t he appellant s. Mr. Chandr am auli Shah, Advocat e for t he r espondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Naresh Pant and Mr. Raunak Pant , Advocat e for respondent no.3.

2. The brief fact s, as disclosed, are t hat on 17.08.2023, one Mahindra KUV Car bearing Regist rat ion No. UK05- TA- 2961 was hired by t he deceased Naveen Kum ar t o t ravel t o Jakhpant for an urgent wor k. While ret ur ning t o Vada at about 3: 00 p.m . near Rikht al, t he v ehicle being driven by Deepak Kum ar m et wit h an accident and fell int o a deep gorge. As a result , Naveen Kum ar died on t he spot , and t he driv er was t hr own out of t he vehicle. Claim ant s alleged t hat t he accident t ook place solely due t o t he rash and negligent dr iving of t he driv er. The deceased, aged 35 years, was a healt hy agr icult ure, young m an hort icult ur e, act ivit ies, earning around ₹30,000 per month and his m ot her and t wo m inor childr en were wholly dependent on him . The claim ant s sought compensation of ₹72,70,000/- along wit h int erest from t he dat e of filing of t he Claim Pet it ion t ill paym ent . The lear ned Tribunal, aft er considering t he Det ailed Accident Report subm it t ed by t he Police, dism issed t he Claim Pet it ion on t he ground t hat no eyewit ness was produced t o est ablish rash and negligent driving. t ransport engaged Lear ned counsel

3. t he appellant s argued t hat t he finding r et ur ned by learned Tribunal is cont r ary t o law and fact s on recor d. t hat P.W.2 Kam lesh Giri had clearly deposed as an I t was point ed out t est im ony w as eyewit ness t hat t he accident occur red due t o rash and negligent driving by Deepak Kum ar challenged by t he I nsurance Com pany in cross- exam inat ion, t herefor e, his st at em ent rem ained uncont rovert ed. furt her argued t hat in t he Det ailed Accident Report , t he t he confession of t he driver t hat he lost cont rol of t he v ehicle as a wild anim al suddenly crossed t he road. This, accor ding t o learned counsel, I t was it self pr oves negligence. argued t hat t he learned Tribunal failed t o t his evidence w hile properly evaluat e deciding I ssue Nos. 1 and 3. I nv est igat ing Officer r ecor ded I t

4. Per cont ra, learned counsel for t he I nsurance Com pany support ed t he j udgm ent t hat negligence was not sat isfact orily proved. t he Tribunal subm it t ed t he t hat

5. Having consider ed t he subm issions of learned counsel for t he part ies and upon per usal of t he r ecord, t his Court is of t he learned Tribunal has not properly appr eciat ed t he evidence of P.W.2, t he claim ant s’ which clearly support ed version. The driver’s own adm ission t hat he lost cont rol of t he v ehicle while t rying t o avoid a wild anim al furt her dem onst rat es lack of reasonable care and caut ion. The law is well set t led t hat t he st andard of proof in m ot or preponderance of probabilit ies and t he claim cannot is no independent eyew it ness, if t he surr ounding circum st ances est ablish negligence. fail m er ely because accident claim s t her e Hon’ble Supr em e Court in t he case of 6. Bim la Devi & ot her s Vs. Him achal Road Transport Corporat ion & ot her s, r eport ed in ( 2009) 13 SCC 530, has held t hat ev en in t he absence of an eyewit ness, negligence can be t he accident and at t ending fact s. t he nat ur e of inferr ed

7. Sim ilarly, in t he case of Minu B. Meht a and anot her Vs. Balkrishna Ram chandra Nayan and anot her, r eport ed in ( 1977) 2 SCC 441, t he Hon’ble Supr em e Court obser ved t hat t he burden of proof m ay shift once negligence is prim a facie shown, and t he driver or ow ner m ust t hen r ebut t he sam e wit h cogent evidence.

8. I n t he pr esent case, learned Tribunal failed t o weigh t he unchallenged t est im ony of P.W.2 along w it h t he driver’s adm ission and t he fact ual m at rix properly. The finding on I ssue Nos. 1 & 3 wit h respect t o r ash and t herefore, cannot be negligent driving, sust ained. The im pugned j udgm ent suffers from m at erial non- considerat ion of r elevant evidence. irregularit y

9. I n view of t he above discussion, t his Appeal from Or der is allowed. The j udgm ent & order dat ed 02.08.2024 passed by Mot or Accident s Claim s Tribunal/ Dist rict Judge, Pit horagar h in M.A.C.P. No. 26 of 2023 is her eby set aside. The m at t er is r em it t ed t o affording decision t o opport unit y requir ed. Lear ned furt her evidence, Tribunal expedit iously as possible. learned Tribunal aft er t he part ies t he on m erit s, t o bot h decide t he

10. Ther e shall be no order as t o cost s. ( A l o k M a h r a , J.)

06.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654 45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C 5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL