Can’t expect eyewitness to be present in every accident case: Karnataka HC

Younus and Shabbir Ahmed, who run a pan shop, had filed a claim petition before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi. The Tribunal awarded Rs 77,350 and Rs 1,19,050 compensation to Younus and Shabbir, respectively.

Bengaluru: It is far from reality to expect an eyewitness to be present in every accident case, the Dharwad bench of the High Court has observed.

Justice V Shrishananda said this while dismissing appeal filed by an insurance firm.

Younus and Shabbir Ahmed, who run a pan shop, had filed a claim petition before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hubballi.

The compensation was claimed on the grounds that on Aug 27, 2013, they sustained injuries after a goods vehicle hit them near Mishrikoti Kadankoppa, while they were proceeding along Karwar-Hubballi Road.

The Tribunal awarded Rs 77,350 and Rs 1,19,050 compensation to Younus and Shabbir, respectively.

The insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident moved the appeal in HC. It was contended that the vehicle was falsely implicated and that there were no eyewitnesses supporting occurrence of accident.

The court said the Tribunal has taken into consideration police records which sufficiently indicated involvement of vehicle. The court said the driver of the vehicle has also been charge sheeted for offence punishable under IPC sections 279, 337 & 338.

“If accident takes place in a busy area or an urban area it is easy to secure eyewitness. But when accident has occurred in a rural area or a road, which was not that busy, then procuring eyewitness is a difficult task for more than one reason,” Justice Shrishananda said.

The court said, “Firstly, those, who have witnessed the accident, might not be interested in setting criminal law in motion. Secondly, even if some persons were to come to rescue the injured they may refrain from intimating police based on their experience with investigation agency or general impression they carry about police. Under such circumstances, expecting an eyewitness to be present in every case is far from
reality.”