In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has addressed the challenge posed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) against the judgment and awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh, in 2002. The case revolves around the tragic deaths of two motorcyclists, Radhey Shyam and Sohan Lal, in a collision with an RSRTC bus on December 7, 1997. The appeals filed by RSRTC were prompted by dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s findings, which held the bus driver solely responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving.

The claimants, dependents of the deceased motorcyclists, contended that the bus driver, Govind Singh, was driving at high speed and in a negligent manner when the accident occurred. The collision happened on the Badwai Majra to Peepli Khera road in Chittorgarh District, where the bus swerved onto the wrong side of the road and struck the motorcycle driven by Radhey Shyam. The claimants filed petitions seeking compensation for the fatalities, blaming the bus driver for the mishap.

In response, the RSRTC and the bus driver denied the allegations of rashness and negligence. They asserted that the accident was caused by the reckless driving of Radhey Shyam, the motorcyclist. However, the Tribunal sided with the claimants, attributing the accident solely to the negligence of the bus driver and awarding compensation accordingly. Dissatisfied with the Tribunal’s decision, RSRTC filed an appeal, challenging both the factual findings and the legal approach taken by the Tribunal.

The RSRTC’s counsel, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, raised several critical arguments, including the absence of direct eye-witness testimony from the claimants, and the lack of a comprehensive charge sheet and site plan to support the claimants' version of events. He also highlighted that the Tribunal had failed to properly evaluate the evidence, particularly the testimonies of the bus driver and conductor, who both maintained that the accident was caused by the motorcycle’s rash driving.

Furthermore, the RSRTC contended that the Tribunal had placed undue reliance on the charge sheet’s conclusion, which was based on a site plan and other documents not fully introduced into evidence. They argued that this was an improper basis for determining liability in a civil case.

On the other hand, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, representing the claimants, supported the Tribunal’s judgment and argued that the award amount was too low, given the circumstances. He pointed out that strict proof of the exact cause of the accident was not necessary in such cases, as the claimants were only required to establish their case based on a preponderance of probability.

   

The crux of the case lies in the Tribunal’s treatment of the evidence. While the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash driving of the bus driver, it placed significant weight on the police charge sheet’s conclusion page and overlooked other relevant evidence. Notably, the Tribunal had dismissed the testimonies of the bus driver and conductor, labeling them as “interested witnesses.”

The Court emphasized that in motor accident claims, the standard of proof is lower than in criminal cases. The preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is the standard. Given this, the Tribunal should have analyzed all the available evidence, including the depositions of the bus driver and conductor, to determine which version of events was more likely.

Furthermore, the Court noted that civil cases, including those involving motor accidents, are decided based on the evidence available in the specific case at hand. The conclusions drawn from the police investigation, while relevant, should not be treated as the sole determinant in civil cases.

In light of the flawed approach in appreciating the evidence, the Rajasthan High Court decided to remand the case back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for a fresh assessment. The Court noted that the Tribunal had erred in placing excessive reliance on the charge sheet and not considering the oral testimonies and other available material in a balanced manner. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s original judgment and directed that the matter be reconsidered in light of its observations within three months.

The ruling also addressed the principle of vicarious liability, stating that the employer (RSRTC) and the bus driver could be jointly liable for the damages if the driver’s actions were in the course of employment. This legal principle, however, was not applied correctly by the Tribunal when absolving the RSRTC of liability while holding the bus driver responsible.

This case underscores the importance of a meticulous and balanced evaluation of evidence in motor accident claims. The Court’s intervention highlights the need for Tribunals to adopt a reasonable approach that considers the preponderance of probabilities and all available evidence, rather than relying heavily on a single document or aspect of the case. The ruling also reinforces the principle that employers can be held vicariously liable for accidents caused by their employees in the course of employment, a crucial aspect of civil liability in such cases.

The remand of this case to the Tribunal for reconsideration provides an opportunity for a more thorough and fair examination of the facts, which could ultimately result in a just outcome for the claimants and the RSRTC.