Vikram & Ors vs Deepak Bakshi & Ors(Royal Sundram Alliance Ins. Company Ltd.)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Reserved on: 27 July 2026.
nd
Pronounced on: 02 September2026.
rd
Uploaded on: 03 September 2026
+ MAC.APP. 85/2018
VIKRAM & ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik
Singh, Advs.
versus

DEEPAK BAKSHI & ORS. (ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE
INS. COMPANY LTD.) .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Bagga and Ms. Mouli
Sharma, Advs. for Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
%
ANISH DAYAL, J.
th
1. This appeal has been filed assailing the award dated 28 October
2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma
Courts (‘ MACT/Tribunal ’), in MACT no. 220/2017, whereby the claim
petition filed by legal representatives of the deceased, Phoolwati , was
rejected.
rd
2. The accident in question occurred on 03 November 2016, when
Smt. Phoolwati , deceased, was walking from her house towards B Block,
Sangam Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, and was hit by a car bearing registration
No. HR-55W-8629, allegedly driven by respondent no.1 and owned by
respondent no.2 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. As a
result of the accident, she fell on the road and sustained grievous
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 1 of 14

injuries. She was immediately taken to Gopal Hospital, Shanti Nagar,
where she was declared “ brought dead ”.

Submission on behalf of claimants
3. Mr. Prashar , counsel for the claimant, submitted that the Tribunal
erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle was not proved. The evidence
on record, when considered as a whole, establishes the involvement of
the offending vehicle and the manner in which the accident occurred.

4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following:
rd
(i) The accident took place on 03 November 2016 at about
11:30 a.m and the FIR was registered on the same day, within about
one hour of the accident, on the basis of a written complaint.
(ii) FIR was registered against the offending vehicle bearing
registration No. HR-55W-8629, in which the involvement of the
offending vehicle has been recorded. Further, the FIR later
culminated in a chargesheet.
(iii) Site plan was also prepared on the same day.
(iv) Mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle was
th
also prepared on the following day, i.e. 04 November 2016, and
damage can be seen to its front portion/headlight was found.
5. Therefore, he stated that the material on record is sufficient to
establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of respondent no.1. The finding to the contrary therefore warrants
interference.
6. He further contended that the evidence of PW2, Rahul , was
rejected only on the ground that there was a discrepancy in his testimony
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 2 of 14

regarding his presence with the deceased. It is submitted that the said
discrepancy was not sufficient to discard his entire testimony. Although
Rahul did not specifically state in his examination-in-chief that he was
accompanying his mother, he stated during cross-examination that he
was going with her.
7. Moreover, he contended that even if considered that the testimony
is not reliable, FIR was registered, which culminated in a chargesheet. In
support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of Ranjeet v.
Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, wherein the Court noted
that where there is no evidence of eyewitness other evidence, such as
FIR, Chargesheet needs to be taken into account.
Submissions On Behalf of Insurance Company
8. Ms. Suman Bagga , Counsel for Insurance Company, in defence,
stated that the claimant's case on negligence rests substantially upon the
testimony of PW2 Rahul , who claims to be an eyewitness. However, his
own testimony creates doubt about his presence at the spot, as has been
noted by the MACT in the impugned award.
9. She drew the attention of the Court to the testimony of Rahul ,
wherein, in his examination-in-chief, he did not state that he was
accompanying the deceased. She pointed out that it was only during
cross-examination that he stated that he was going with his mother.
10. Moreover, the fact that Rahul lodged the FIR does not establish
that he had personally witnessed the accident. A complainant may lodge
an FIR on the basis of information received from another person.
Therefore, the FIR cannot be treated as substantive evidence of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 3 of 14

negligence. Furthermore, the chargesheet also cannot be treated as proof
of negligence.
11. Therefore, she contended that registration of FIR and the
complaint is nothing but an afterthought.
12. The Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence, found the testimony
of Rahul unreliable and held that negligence had not been established.
Therefore, the claimant was unable to establish his claim and, therefore,
the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim.
13. She further stated that without prejudice, even if the involvement
of the offending vehicle is accepted, involvement of the vehicle by itself
is not sufficient to maintain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. Where negligence is not proved, an award under Section
166 cannot be granted merely because the vehicle was involved in the
accident. At best, compensation can be granted under Section 163A of
MV Act.
nd
14. She also drew attention notification dated 22 May 2018,
whereby S.163A of MV Act was amended and, following which, in case
of fatal accident, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs is awarded.

Impugned award
15. The Tribunal noted that the testimony of PW2, Rahul , the alleged
eyewitness, was unreliable on account of material inconsistencies,
including the absence of any disclosure in the FIR, claim petition or
examination-in-chief that he was accompanying the deceased.
16. Tribunal also noted that the other persons cited as eyewitnesses in
the police report were not examined.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 4 of 14

17. As regards the other evidence on record, MACT held that the
proof of negligence is sine qua non to succeed in claim petition and mere
registration of criminal case against driver cannot attract negligence on
the part of driver of the offending vehicle.
18. MACT concluded that the claimant failed to prove that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1
and that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained in accident in
question.

Analysis
19. To assess the contention of the claimant regarding both the
involvement of the alleged offending vehicle and proof of its
involvement in the accident, a few aspects need to be examined and
appreciated:
rd
i. Firstly , the accident is alleged to have occurred on 03 November
2016 at about 11:30 a.m., resulting in the death of Smt. Phoolwati .
rd
In this regard, an FIR was registered on 03 November 2016 at
th
01:00 p.m. Charge-sheet was subsequently filed on 14
November 2016, charging the driver of the offending vehicle,
Deepak Bakshi , under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal
Code (‘ IPC’ );
ii. Secondly , the FIR was registered on the basis of a written
complaint made by the complainant, Rahul , as stated in the FIR
itself. The FIR bears General Diary Entry No. 019 at 01:00 p.m.
The accused is initially described as an unknown driver driving a
car bearing registration number HR 55W 8629;
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 5 of 14

iii. Thirdly , the complaint on the basis of which the FIR was
registered was a written complaint signed by Rahul , containing
rd
his address and phone number and dated 03 November 2016. It
rd
states that at about 11:30 a.m. on 03 November 2016, his
mother, Smt. Phoolwati , was on the road in front of the Pradhan’s
house, at the turn, when a fast-driven Celerio bearing registration
number HR-55W-8629 collided with her. His mother sustained
grievous injuries and was taken to Gopal Hospital, Shanti Nagar,
where she was declared ‘ brought dead ’; and
iv. Fourthly , the site plan, which forms part of the investigation and
is extracted hereinbelow, shows the house of the Pradhan and,
immediately opposite it, the turn where the accident occurred.
The site plan indicates that the offending vehicle appears to have
taken a left turn at the said point and collided with the deceased.
For ease of reference the site pan is extracted as under:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 6 of 14

20. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the Court has to consider
whether the involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence of
its driver stand established so as to sustain the claim.
21. It is quite clear from this sequence of events that the complaint
was lodged immediately by Rahul, on the basis of which the FIR was
registered immediately thereafter at 01.00 p.m. The deceased was taken
to the identified Gopal Hospital , where she was declared ‘ brought dead ’.
22. There is no lapse of time in this sequence of events which could
suggest that the FIR was subsequently registered by introducing or
implanting a vehicle. It would be very difficult to assume that the
offending vehicle was subsequently introduced into the case in these
circumstances. In fact, the charge-sheet was also filed within 10 days.
23. Without entering into the debate regarding credibility of the
eyewitness, even on this aspect, applying the principles enunciated by
the Supreme Court in Ranjeet ( supra ), the involvement of the offending
vehicle cannot be doubted. For ease of reference, relevant paragraphs of
Ranjeet ( supra ) are extracted as under:
“ 3. In an accident which took place on 13.06.2006, one
‘Ramkaran’ was alleged to have been hit by the bus
leading to his death. An FIR was lodged wherein charge
sheet was submitted against the driver of the bus. On the
claim being preferred to the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal1, since, the eye-witnesses were not produced,
the Tribunal refused to grant any compensation. The
decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the High Court.
4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been
filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further
evidence is required to prove that the bus was being
negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the
eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 7 of 14

prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the
bus driver.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion
that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly
erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to the
claimants .”
(emphasis added)

24. Even in the absence of an eyewitness, the fact that an FIR was
registered promptly and a charge-sheet was filed pursuant to
investigation would, on the facts of the present case, support the
claimant's case regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and
negligence.
25. Notwithstanding the above, considerable argument was raised on
the credibility of the eyewitness, Rahul; therefore, the same needs to be
examined.
26. Rahul has categorically stated in his affidavit, duly tendered in
evidence, that he was an eyewitness. He states that the accident occurred
near Ramyas Pradhan House, Sangam Vihar, PS Loni Boarder, District,
Ghaziabad, where the offending vehicle, being driven rashly and
negligently, violating traffic rules without blowing any horn, came from
the front side and hit his mother with great force.
27. He states that she fell on the road, sustained grievous injuries and
was taken to Gopal Hospital, Shanti Nagar , where she was declared
brought dead. The post-mortem was conducted at mortuary , Distt.
Hospital, Ghaziabad, UP .
28. The MACT discussed the cross-examination and reached a finding
that this evidence has a lot of contradictions. Therefore, it is apparent
that the testimony of Rahul should be examined.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 8 of 14

29. The first aspect is that Rahul was possibly not going along with
his mother, Phoolwati, at the time of the accident since he did not
specifically state in his affidavit that he was accompanying her.
30. However, after examining all the circumstances as discussed
above, a mere omission to state that he was not accompanying his
mother may not be relevant, considering he does state that he was an
eyewitness and he described the accident in great detail. In his testimony,
he stated that he took note of the registration number of the offending
vehicle and immediately reported the accident to the police by filing a
written complaint to the police. He further stated that he accompanied
his mother to the hospital and was there when the body of his deceased
mother was being taken to the mortuary.
31. It would, therefore, be difficult to discard his testimony as not
credible merely because he did not elaborate upon the circumstances in
which he witnessed the accident or specifically state that he was
accompanying his mother.
32. The other aspect, which was taken into account by the MACT, is
that Rahul stated that the accident occurred at 11:30 a.m., and that the
police recorded his statement at about 11:30 a.m. This, in the case of a
witness who is being examined much later after the accident and giving
his testimony in a Court environment, can be ignored for the simple
reason that he also clarifies that the hospital was 200 to 300 metres away
and that he took his mother by auto to the hospital. For a son to see his
mother being crushed under a car, in a state of complete distress and
having suffered grievous injuries, it is quite possible for him to be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 9 of 14

flustered at that time and not know the exact timing, down to the minute,
when these events took place.
33. The other aspect concerning the credibility of the witness relates
to the rest of his testimony. Rahul merely stated that he was not present
at the spot when the police reached there. This indicates that he had
already gone to the hospital and that the police reached the spot
thereafter, particularly since the police had first met him at the hospital.
It is therefore alleged that there is a contradiction in his statement, since
he states he did not know “ after how much time the police reached at the
spot ”.

34. His testimony is, in fact, corroborated by his statement in cross-
examination that police officials met him outside the hospital after about
15-20 minutes and were there when he took his mother to the mortuary.
35. It was also argued that Rahul, in his statement and cross-
examination, did not know the name of the hospital where the post-
mortem of his mother was conducted. This cannot be a determinative
issue, considering that he does state that it was a district hospital
mortuary, and, possibly, when questioned by the counsel cross-
examining him, he simply did not know the exact name of the hospital
where the post-mortem was conducted.
36. Much argument was also made about the person who lodged the
FIR. As stated above, the FIR was lodged on the basis of the written
complaint by Rahul . As to whether the police were persuaded at that
time by Rahul has been clearly explained by him, stating that he had
informed his elder brother, Vikram , about the accident, who was not
present at the time of the accident, and that “ he lodged the FIR ”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 10 of 14

37. This could mean that, on the basis of the written complaint, the
FIR was registered, and Vikram may have been the one who pursued the
matter at the police station, rather than Rahul , considering that he was
taking care of his mother’s situation at that time.
38. Moreover, the mechanical inspection report also seems to suggest
that there was damage to the front side of the offending vehicle, which
th
was examined on 04 November 2016, i.e., a day after the accident.
39. The investigation seems to have been pursued quickly, and there is
no delay to suggest that a vehicle would have been implanted. The
witness seems to be credible and, therefore, considering all the facts and
circumstances on the preponderance of probabilities , the claim ought not
to have been rejected.
40. Aside from this, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which is a well-
recognised doctrine in the law of negligence, may also be apply to the
present circumstances.
41. The doctrine enables a Court to draw an inference of negligence
from the very nature of the accident where the occurrence is such that, in
the ordinary course of events, it would not have happened without
negligence.
42. The surrounding facts themselves constitute prima facie evidence
of negligence, thereby shifting the evidentiary burden to the person who
had control over the offending vehicle to provide an explanation.
43. This aspect has been discussed in some detail by this Court in
paragraphs no. 31-37 of National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Shehnaaz Begum & Ors ., 2026:DHC:316; the relevant paras are as
under:

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 11 of 14

“31. Res ipsa loquitur means “the things speak for
itself”, is a well-recognised doctrine in the law of
negligence. The doctrine enables a court to draw an
inference of negligence from the very nature of the accident,
where the occurrence is such that, in the ordinary course of
events, it would not have happened without negligence. In
such circumstances, the surrounding facts themselves
constitute prima facie evidence of negligence, thereby
shifting the evidentiary burden onto the person who had
control over the instrumentality causing the injury to
provide an explanation consistent with due care.
*

37. Thus, where direct evidence regarding the manner
of the accident is unavailable, the Tribunal is entitled to
examine the surrounding circumstances and assess whether
the occurrence is of such a nature that negligence can
reasonably be inferred. In such cases, the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur operates as a rule of evidence enabling the
Tribunal, on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities, to determine whether the accident itself
provides a reasonable basis to infer negligence. ”

(emphasis added)

44. This principle sometimes operates as a rule of evidence enabling
the Tribunal, on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities , to
determine whether the accident itself provides a reasonable basis for
negligence. The deceased was a pedestrian and therefore the duty of care
of the offending vehicle driver was inherent.
45. In this regard, there was nothing adverse which was offered by the
testimony of the owner. He simply stated that the accident did not occur
due to the negligence of the driver. He then goes on to state, “ if any
accident caused due to the negligence on the part of driver of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 12 of 14

deponent, the driver of the deponent was having a valid and effective
driver license at the time of the accident ”.
46. There was no cross-examination of the owner by the Insurance
Company to elicit any information as to whether the offending vehicle
was not present at the place and time of the accident or was elsewhere.
47. In cross-examination, the owner, examined as R2W1 , simply
stated, “ it is correct that Sh. Deepak Bakshi was my driver at the time of
the accident ”. The rest of the cross-examination concerned the driving
licence aspect, which would not have any relevance to the
maintainability of the claim petition.

48. Moreover, the driver was not examined to give any evidence
adverse to the allegation that he caused the accident.

Conclusions
49. Accordingly, this Court finds that the driver of the offending
vehicle was negligent and that the accident occurred due to his rash and
negligent driving.
50. The involvement of the offending vehicle and the negligence of its
driver stand established on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities.
51. Upon perusal of the material on record, including site plan,
testimony of eyewitness, complaint filed by Rahul , FIR, etc. and
surrounding circumstances of the accident also attract the doctrine of res
ipsa loquitur , the nature of the occurrence itself furnishing a reasonable
basis to infer negligence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 13 of 14

52. Once such a prima facie inference of negligence is established, the
burden lies upon the driver of the offending vehicle to furnish an
explanation consistent with due care. However, the owner and the driver
failed to provide any explanation to the contrary.
53. Therefore, no evidence was led either before the MACT or before
this Court by the driver or owner to displace the inference arising from
the material on record.
54. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
55. Considering that compensation would have to be ascertained, the
Court is remanding the matter to the MACT for computation of
compensation.
st
56. Accordingly, list the matter before the MACT on 1 October
2026.

57. Since the accident occurred in 2016, nearly a decade ago, the
MACT may endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of
five months.
58. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(ANISH DAYAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 02, 2026/RK/ bp
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:03.09.2026
16:28:10
MAC. APP. 85/2018 `Page 14 of 14