The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of a family seeking compensation for the death of their loved one in a motorcycle accident, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness testimony and the principle of preponderance of probability in motor accident cases.

Supreme Court of India Overturns Lower Court Judgments, Awards Compensation in Fatal Accident Case, the appeal came before the Supreme Court of India challenging a Kerala High Court judgment that upheld the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's (MACT) dismissal of a compensation claim. The appellants are the widow, minor child, and parents of Ikhbal (the deceased), seeking compensation for his death in a motorcycle accident on June 10, 2013. The appellants alleged that Ikhbal died due to the negligent driving of the respondent, Mini Babu George, who was driving a car that collided with Ikhbal's motorcycle.

The background of the incident was such that the deceased was riding his motorcycle and when he reached near ‘Mrala’ junction, a K.S.R.T.C. bus, which was going in front, stopped at the bus stop. The deceased attempted to overtake the bus and at that time the subject car driven by respondent no. 2 came from the opposite direction and hit at the motorcycle of the deceased on which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. He was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was an employee as U.D. Clerk in Registration Department and had monthly income of Rs. 21,456/-.

Primary question of law before the Supreme Court was, whether the evidence established that the car driven by the respondent was involved in the accident? Since both the Tribunal and High Court had ruled against the appellants on this point. However, the appellants argued that there is ample evidence out there to proved the car's involvement, and the lower courts had wrongly disregarded the principle of "Res ipsa loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself). The respondents, however, maintained that no witness had actually seen the car hit the motorcycle and the lower courts had appropriately assessed the evidence.

The Supreme Court, however acknowledging that, it generally refrains from reassessing evidence in appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court referred to its precedent in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., which allows for examination of evidence to determine if lower court findings are perverse, erroneous, or manifestly wrong.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found several compelling points such as:
The car had sustained damages;
The car driver admitted the bus was 100 feet away when the motorcycle allegedly hit his car;
An eyewitness (PW-6) testified to seeing the car hit the motorcycle;
and The bus driver (PW-2) stated he heard the sound of the accident and was told by bystanders that the car had hit the motorcycle.

The Apex Court criticized the lower courts for dismissing the eyewitness testimony (as PW-6) solely since the police had not recorded his statement during their investigation, and the Court emphasized that a trustworthy witness in a motor accident case should not be discredited simply because their statement wasn't recorded by the police.

Applying the principle of preponderance of probability applicable in motor accident cases, the Court concluded that the evidence overwhelmingly indicated the car’s involvement in the accident. The nature of the damage to the car, as documented in the Mahazar, made it highly improbable that the car was not involved.

The Supreme Court overturned the judgments of the lower courts and ruled in favor of the appellants. The Court awarded them compensation of Rs. 46,31,496/- with 9% annual interest from the date of filing the claim petition until realization of payment, to be made within three months. Failure to comply would result in a 12% annual interest on the awarded amount.

Coram: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Between: Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors vs Mini Babu George & Ors.
DOJ: 17-10-2024