The Karnataka High Court has underscored the fundamental right to cross-examination in motor accident claims, setting aside a Tribunal award where the appellant was denied an opportunity to contest evidence due to COVID-19 lockdown disruptions. The judgment emphasizes that procedural fairness must prevail even during extraordinary circumstances, remanding the case for fresh trial with specific directions for compliance.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Kariyaiah, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mysuru, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,85,500 for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on 17.02.2016. He alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle (Registration No. KA-09-HC-5965) owned by the appellant, Murthy @ Narasimhamurthy. The appellant contested the claim, asserting that the accident was caused by the respondent's own negligence while riding a TVS XL Super Moped.
Key Facts
- Date of Accident: 17.02.2016
- Vehicle Involved: Hero Honda Splendor Plus (KA-09-HC-5965) owned by the appellant
- Claimant's Vehicle: TVS XL Super Moped
- Claim Amount: Rs. 1,85,500
- Claim Petition: MVC No. 942/2017 filed before the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru
- Appellant's Contention: Accident occurred due to the respondent's negligence
- Evidence Led:
- Respondent examined as P.W.1 and marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15
- Doctor examined as P.W.2 and marked documents Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.19
- Appellant did not lead any evidence or cross-examine witnesses
Procedural History
- 17.02.2016: Road traffic accident occurred
- MVC No. 942/2017: Claim petition filed before MACT, Mysuru
- Appellant's Response: Filed statement of objections contesting the claim
- Evidence Recording:
- P.W.1 (Respondent): Examined; no cross-examination conducted
- P.W.2 (Doctor): Examined on 30.03.2021; no cross-examination due to appellant's counsel's absence
- COVID-19 Impact: Matter adjourned multiple times due to lockdown
- 26.08.2021: Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,85,500 with 6% interest p.a. from the date of petition till realization
- MFA No. 2990 of 2023: Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Karnataka High Court
- 01.07.2026: High Court delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Setting aside of the Tribunal's judgment and award dated 26.08.2021
- Remand of the matter for fresh trial to afford an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence
- Direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the petition expeditiously
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the appellant's right to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence under the principles of natural justice was violated due to procedural lapses during the COVID-19 lockdown, warranting remand of the case for fresh trial.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- Contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent himself
- Argued that the appellant was not afforded a fair opportunity to contest the matter, particularly during the COVID-19 lockdown
- Prayed for remand of the case to allow cross-examination of witnesses and leading of evidence
For the Respondent
- Contended that the appellant was given sufficient opportunities by the Tribunal but failed to avail them
- Argued that the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned judgment and award based on the evidence on record
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the appellant had filed a statement of objections contesting the claim, specifically denying liability and attributing negligence to the respondent. However, the appellant did not cross-examine P.W.1 (the respondent) and P.W.2 (the doctor), whose examination took place on 30.03.2021 during the COVID-19 lockdown. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel was absent on the date of P.W.2's examination, and cross-examination was recorded as nil.
The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses, are fundamental to a fair trial. It held that the procedural disruptions caused by the COVID-19 lockdown cannot deprive a party of their right to contest evidence, especially when the appellant had actively participated in the proceedings by filing objections.
"Considering the said aspect, proceedings have taken place during COVID-19 and the appellant herein was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the claim petition. Therefore, appellant requires an opportunity to contest the petition and for that the matter requires to be remanded."
The Court further noted that the appellant had deposited Rs. 70,000 as directed and had already deposited the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000 at the time of filing the appeal. These deposits were ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for safekeeping during the remand proceedings.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court allowed the appeal with the following directions:
- Appeal allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent
- Judgment and award dated 26.08.2021 passed in MVC No. 942/2017 set aside
- Matter remanded to the Tribunal for affording the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 and P.W.2 and lead evidence
- Parties directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.08.2026 without awaiting any court notice
- Rs. 95,000 (Rs. 25,000 + Rs. 70,000) deposited by the appellant to be transmitted to the Tribunal and kept in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank for one year with auto-renewal instructions
- Appellant to bear expenses of securing the presence of P.W.2 (Doctor) for cross-examination
- Appellant to deposit costs of Rs. 5,000 payable to the respondent before the Tribunal on or before 17.08.2026
- Tribunal directed to dispose of the petition expeditiously
What This Means For Similar Cases
Right to Cross-Examination Is Non-Negotiable
This judgment reinforces that the right to cross-examine witnesses is a cornerstone of natural justice and cannot be compromised, even during extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. Tribunals and courts must ensure that:
- Parties are afforded adequate opportunities to contest evidence, regardless of procedural disruptions
- Adjournments or lockdowns do not result in denial of fundamental rights
- Default orders are avoided when a party has actively participated in proceedings
Procedural Fairness Must Prevail Over Expediency
- Tribunals must record reasons if cross-examination is denied or taken as nil, especially when a party has filed objections
- Courts should lean toward remand in cases where procedural lapses have prejudiced a party's right to fair trial
- Costs may be imposed to deter frivolous appeals but should not act as a barrier to justice
Practical Steps for Practitioners
- Document all procedural steps: Ensure that objections, adjournments, and evidence recording are meticulously documented
- Seek adjournments proactively: If unable to attend, file applications for adjournment well in advance
- Argue for remand: In cases where cross-examination was unfairly denied, cite this judgment to seek remand for fresh trial
- Monitor compliance: Ensure that directions for deposits, costs, and appearances are strictly followed to avoid adverse orders
