A charge sheet against the driver may establish prima facie negligence despite an initial FIR naming the deceased.

The claimants sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the death of Jaypal in a motorcycle accident.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 9,89,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

Although the FIR initially named Jaypal as the driver, the police investigation resulted in a chargesheet against Opponent No. 1, Sonu, as driver.

The Tribunal found that Sonu was driving and allowed the claim.

Whether the deceased was driving the motorcycle, such that the accident involved his own negligence, or whether Opponent No. 1 was driving and the deceased was a pillion rider

Whether the Tribunal’s finding on the driver’s identity and negligence should be disturbed on the basis of the FIR and the criminal proceedings

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from an accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against a Tribunal’s award.

The Court relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) AIJEL-SC 77486, for the principles that a chargesheet creates a prima facie case of negligence, a criminal acquittal does not displace prima facie civil liability, and a Tribunal’s award should not be overturned without applying the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities.

The Court also noted that an FIR, by itself, was not evidence establishing who was driving; the driver’s identity was to be assessed in light of the investigation and the evidence before the Tribunal.

The Court noted that Opponent No. 1 did not testify or file a written statement denying that he was driving, and the insurer led no evidence to contradict the claimants or examine the Investigating Officer about the investigation.

The chargesheet against Opponent No. 1 was not challenged by either the insurer or Opponent No. 1.

In that evidentiary context, the initial FIR did not establish that the deceased was driving, and the subsequent investigation and chargesheet supported the Tribunal’s finding that Opponent No. 1 was driving and the deceased was a pillion rider.

The criminal court’s acquittal of Opponent No. 1 did not, by itself, displace that civil finding.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 9,89,000 with interest at 9% per annum.

Any interim relief was vacated, and any amount deposited with the Registry or Tribunal was directed to be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with law.