A driver’s admission of losing control at a known blind turn establishes negligence in a motor-accident claim.

The claimants sought compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, following the death of Girish Chaubey, aged 24, in a car accident on 24 March 2017.

They alleged that respondent no. 1, the car’s owner and driver, drove negligently, struck a tree, and caused the deceased’s fatal injuries; they claimed that he earned a monthly salary of ₹20,620

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition, finding no rash or negligent driving and leaving the other issues undecided.

On appeal, the High Court considered the driver’s written statement, which denied the accident in one paragraph but admitted it elsewhere and described losing control at an S-turn after being blinded by oncoming headlights.

Whether the admitted circumstances in the driver’s written statement established that the accident resulted from his rash or negligent driving, despite the claimants not producing an eyewitness to the accident

Whether the vehicle’s driver and vehicle had valid documents at the time of the accident

Whether the claimants established the deceased’s income and were entitled to compensation, and, if so, in what amount and against whom

Under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation may be claimed for death arising from a motor accident; the Court referred to Smt. Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9, in discussing motor-accident compensation and no-fault liability.

Negligence is assessed contextually by reference to the conduct of a reasonable and prudent person, and drivers must take reasonable care to avoid endangering road users, as explained in Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284.

The principle of res ipsa loquitur may permit negligence to be inferred from the circumstances of an accident; the Court also referred to its earlier decision in Niranjan Vishwas v. Sohan Pal Singh, Appeal From Order No. 50 of 2009, decided 5 April 2021.

An admitted fact need not be proved by further evidence.

The Court treated the driver’s pleadings as admissions that the accident occurred and that he lost control at the S-turn after being blinded by oncoming headlights. Because he knew the road’s visibility was limited at that turn, he was required to take additional care; his failure to do so supported a finding of negligence.

The circumstances also justified applying res ipsa loquitur, notwithstanding the absence of an eyewitness produced by the claimants.

The Court found the driving licence, registration certificate, and insurance policy on record, with nothing shown to undermine their validity.

It accepted the salary evidence of ₹20,620 per month and calculated compensation using a 50% future-prospects addition, a 50% deduction for personal expenses, and a multiplier of 18.

It set aside the Tribunal’s award, allowed the claim petition and appeal, and directed respondent no. 2, the insurer, to pay the compensation.