A claimant’s failure to testify does not defeat a motor accident claim proved through reliable eyewitness evidence.

On 7 April 2011, respondent no. 1 was travelling on his Scooty from Kotdwar towards Sitabpur when a taxi Jeep, registration no. U.A.-12-7351, allegedly being driven rashly and negligently, overtook and struck him.

He suffered grievous injuries, including head injuries affecting his memory, eyesight, and ability to perform daily activities.

He filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotdwar.

By judgment and award dated 12 June 2014 in M.A.C.P. No. 46 of 2011, the Tribunal awarded compensation of ₹5,40,875.

The Insurance Company challenged the award, principally contending that the claimant had not entered the witness box and that the accident and involvement of the insured vehicle had not been reliably proved.

Whether the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of vehicle no. U.A.-12-7351 were established by reliable evidence despite the claimant not personally deposing before the Tribunal.

Whether the finding that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle was supported by the evidence and warranted interference in appellate jurisdiction.

Whether the compensation of ₹5,40,875 awarded by the Tribunal was just, reasonable, and legally sustainable.

The Court applied the principles governing adjudication of motor accident compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the requirement to establish the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, and actionable negligence on the basis of the evidence on record.

It held that the testimony of a credible eyewitness, if not materially discredited in cross-examination, can establish the occurrence and involvement of the offending vehicle.

The Court also accepted that the claimant’s non-examination is not fatal where credible evidence explains his inability to depose, particularly when supported by medical material.

Determination of compensation must conform to the principle of “just compensation”; the Court additionally referred to the Constitution Bench decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as stating the applicable principles for motor accident compensation.

An appellate court will not interfere with findings based on evidence unless they suffer from perversity, material illegality, or other legal infirmity.

The Court found that PW-5 had directly witnessed the accident and had categorically identified the offending vehicle as the white taxi Jeep bearing registration no. U.A.-12-7351. His evidence regarding the accident and vehicle involvement remained materially unshaken in cross-examination, and the Insurance Company produced no cogent evidence to discredit him.

The claimant’s failure to testify did not undermine the claim because his mother explained that his serious head injuries prevented him from appearing as a witness, and that explanation was supported by a medical certificate and was not effectively controverted.

On this evidentiary foundation, the Tribunal’s finding of rash and negligent driving was neither perverse nor legally infirm, and therefore did not warrant appellate interference.

The Court further held that the awarded sum of ₹5,40,875 was just and reasonable and consistent with the applicable principles governing compensation.

The compensation of ₹5,40,875 was upheld as just and reasonable.

Accordingly, the Appeal from Order was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 12 June 2014 were affirmed.

Any statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company was directed to be remitted to the Tribunal for adjustment against the award, with the balance amount, if any, to be released to the claimant in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.

No order as to costs was made.