Vimlesh Yadav And Ors vs Hari Om And Ors

$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of decision: 23 April 2026
+ MAC.APP. 451/2023
VIMLESH YADAV AND ORS .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr. C.
Sanal Namhiar, Mr. Abhinav
Shailly, Ms. Chetna Singh and Ms.
Swati Dwivedi Advs.
versus

HARI OM AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath and Mr.
Harshit Singh, Advs. for R-3/OIC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J (Oral)
1. Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh , counsel for claimants, assails the award
st
dated 31 March 2023 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(‘ MACT ’), South-West District, Dwarka Courts in MACP No. 475/2017,
whereby the claim filed by the claimants was dismissed as negligence of
driver could not be proved.
th
2. The present case pertains to an accident that occurred on 24
August 2016, wherein the deceased, a trained Army Commando, qualified
for NSG, aged 31 years, was travelling on his Honda Activa Scooty from
Delhi Cantt to Manesar , Haryana, when he was hit from behind by a
Chevrolet Enjoy taxi bearing no. HR-55U-7317, driven by respondent
no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP 451/2023 1 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:28.04.2026
15:10:46

3. The MACT concluded that the claimants, being the Legal
Representatives of the deceased ( wife, two sons and parents ) were unable
to prove negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle for the
purposes of the claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988
(‘ MV Act ’), and accordingly dismissed the claim.
4. Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma , however, took this Court through the
FIR, the chargesheet, the mechanical inspection report, the site plan, and
the statement given by the owner under Section 133 of the MV Act.
5. Counsel for appellant relies on the decision in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana , 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1700 and Ranjeet v.
Abdul Kayam Neb , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, wherein the Courts have
stated that once the chargesheet has been filed, no further evidence is
required, even if the eyewitnesses have not examined.
6. He also contends that the driver and the owner did not choose to
appear before the MACT to rebut the allegation of negligence, and relies
upon Ramanibala Das & Anr. v. Ajit Das & Ors , 2023 SCC OnLine Cal
3074 and United India & Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors ,
2014 SCC OnLine Del 362.
7. It was also contended that absence of an eyewitness will not be
detrimental to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities as stated in Bimla Devi and Ors v. Himachal Roadways and
Ors , (2009) 13 SCC 530.
8. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath , counsel for Insurance Company, pressed the
following arguments:
(i) There was no eyewitness to the accident.
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP 451/2023 2 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:28.04.2026
15:10:46

(ii) Testimony of PW-1 , Vimlesh Yadav , the wife of the deceased,
would not be relevant, since she was telephonically informed by
the police about the accident.
(iii) Chargesheet filed did not name any eyewitness.
(iv) Even if in the chargesheet investigation came to a conclusion of
charging respondent no. l for offences under the IPC, the same
does not amount to a finding of rash and negligent driving.
(v) Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Meena Variyal v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd . (2007)
5 SCC 428.
Analysis
9. It is important to note that, as per the site plan, the collision
occurred on the right side of the carriageway. The mechanical inspection
report of the Chevrolet Enjoy taxi shows that the front bumper on the
conductor’s side was caved in, and there were scratches and dents on the
fender and front window panel.
10. Moreover, statement of owner of the offending vehicle is
categorical in that the accident was caused by the car belonging to the
company/ respondent no.2, and at the time of accident, respondent no.1
was driving the car.
11. Once the FIR was registered and a chargesheet was filed against the
driver of the offending vehicle, the driver can be held negligent even in
the absence of an eyewitness. This is in consonance with the decisions of
the Supreme Court in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb ( supra ) and
Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd . , 2025 SCC
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP 451/2023 3 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:28.04.2026
15:10:46

OnLine SC 636.
12. Recently, this Court has also considered these aspects of proving
negligence, lack of eyewitnesses, principle of res ipsa loquitur and
procedure entailed before the MACT in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V
Shehnaj Begum & Ors , 2026:DHC:3169 and Oriental Insurance Co. v.
Sunita Singh 2026:DHC:3190 , wherein the judgments of the Supreme
Court have been considered in some details.
13. This Court, in Sunita Singh ( supra ), observed as regards the issue
of negligence as under:

“ 49. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that, in this
process, the Tribunal can rely upon testimonies made
in a Criminal Proceeding, which has led to filing of a
charge sheet, which has not been set aside or
protested, to be persuasive data to apply the test of
preponderance of probabilities.
50. Which is why the line of reasoning provided by this
Court in Pushpa Rana (supra), as noted above in
paragraph 18, has been repeatedly endorsed, till, as
recently as in Mathew Alexander (supra), which relied
upon a line of judgments upholding the principle of
preponderance of probabilities.
51. Therefore, the Court does not find anything amiss
in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, post
the remand, having relied upon the testimony of
eyewitness before the Criminal Court, and the factum
of FIR followed by a charge sheet, thereby, holding
respondent no.5/driver of offending vehicle as
negligent. To this extent, plea of the
appellant/Insurance Company is not tenable. ”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP 451/2023 4 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:28.04.2026
15:10:46

14. Further, this court in Shehnaj Begum ( supra ), elucidated the three
fundamental pillars for assessment of negligence. The relevant paragraphs
are extracted as under:
“ 39. First, that the proceedings before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal are in nature of an inquiry
and are not hemmed in by rules of procedure or
evidence. The Supreme Court in Shila Datta (supra)
[passages extracted in paragraph 20 (a) above], has
elaborated on this aspect. Essentially, a claim under
Section 165 of the MV Act, is neither a suit nor an
adversarial lis.
40. Tribunal holds an inquiry and makes an award to
determine compensation, which ought to be just and
reasonable. The procedure to be followed is
summarised in the best discretion of the Tribunal. It
has the power under Section 169 of MV Act to summon
persons possessing special knowledge of the matters
relevant to the inquiry.
…
42. Having clearly sketched the contours of the
procedure undertaken by a Tribunal, it brings us to the
second issue, which is determination of negligence.
The nature of the accident and the basic facts
surrounding the same are presented before the
Tribunal in the form of a DAR (Detailed Accident
Report), or through an FIR, or a recording in a police
diary, along with the claim for compensation. In order
to arrive at an assessment of negligence and, therefore,
consequential liability in tort law, the principle of res
ipsa loquitur, particularly in accident cases, is often
brought into play.
…
45. Therefore, for application of the principle, it must
be shown that the offending vehicle was under the
management of the defendant and that the accident was
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP 451/2023 5 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:28.04.2026
15:10:46

such that, in the ordinary course of things, it would not
have happened if those who were in management had
used proper care. Having reached a reasonable
inference based on the facts of the accident and being
presented with a defence raised by defendants that they
exercised care to avert foreseeable harm, the issue
before the Tribunal would be how to balance the two
aspects and what parameter is to be applied in
measuring this balance, or in assessing which side the
scales tilt.
46. This brings us to the third aspect, which is the test
to be applied. It is well settled that the test or the
burden of proof which applies is not that of beyond a
reasonable doubt (as in criminal cases), but on the test
of preponderance of probabilities.
…
48. This would effectively mean that the Tribunal is
required to weigh the material placed before it,
including the police record, evidence, testimonies,
documentary evidence, to determine which way the
balance tilts, i.e. “what is more probable?”.”
…
51. The ‘basic principles of law’ are those that have
been touched upon above, which can be usefully
termed as the ‘three fundamental pillars’ for
assessment of negligence (i.e. proceeding is in nature
of inquiries, application of res ipsa loquitur doctrine
and use of preponderance of probability as the
balancing test) .”
(emphasis supplied)

15. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the MACT
award insofar as it dismisses the claim on the ground that negligence has
not been proved. The material on record, including the FIR, chargesheet,
site plan, mechanical inspection report, and the settled position of law,
Signature Not Verified

MAC APP 451/2023 6 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:28.04.2026
15:10:46

clearly satisfies the test of preponderance of probabilities. Since this
threshold has been crossed by appellant, the only issue that remains for
consideration is the quantum of compensation.
16. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the MACT with a
direction to dispose of the same within a period of three months,
considering that the accident occurred in the year 2016 and nearly a
decade has elapsed since.
th
17. List before the MACT on 06 May 2026.
18. Accordingly, appeal is disposed of in above terms. Pending
applications (if any) are rendered infructuous.

19. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL
(JUDGE)
APRIL 23, 2026 / RK / zb




Signature Not Verified

MAC APP 451/2023 7 of 7

Digitally Signed By:RAHUL
KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Signing Date:28.04.2026
15:10:46