A police charge sheet is not conclusive proof of negligence in motor accident claims.

On 11 February 2015, a Toyota Qualis and an APSRTC bus collided head-on near Kuderu Village on the Bellary–Ananthapur Road. The Qualis driver, Syed Azam Pasha, and passenger, Khaja Khan, died.

Their legal representatives filed separate claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal dismissed both claims, relying principally on a police charge sheet filed against the Qualis driver and on the claimants’ failure to produce certain police records, although it had assessed compensation in each claim.

The claimants appealed.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing both claims by relying on the police charge sheet, or whether the evidence supported a finding of negligence against both drivers.

2. Whether, and to what extent, the claimants were entitled to compensation given the deceased Qualis driver’s share of responsibility and the passenger’s status as an innocent occupant.

Claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are determined on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities. A police charge sheet reflects an investigative opinion and is not conclusive proof of tortious liability; the Tribunal must independently assess the evidence.

Where negligence of multiple drivers contributes to an accident, liability may be apportioned between them. A passenger who did not contribute to the accident is not subject to a deduction for contributory negligence; the Court relied on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2015) 9 SCC 273, in addressing the passenger’s entitlement.

The High Court held that the Tribunal erred by treating the charge sheet against the deceased Qualis driver as decisive and failing to independently weigh the evidence.

Considering the eyewitness testimony, the bus driver’s evidence and the photographs showing substantial front-end damage to both vehicles, the Court rejected the bus driver’s assertion that the bus had been stationary and found that both drivers had failed to exercise due care.

It apportioned negligence equally between the APSRTC bus driver and the Qualis driver.

The passenger Khaja Khan was not personally contributorily negligent, while the deceased Qualis driver’s 50% share reduced the compensation recoverable by his representatives.

For Khaja Khan’s death, the Court affirmed compensation of Rs.14,35,200; its reasoning treated the owner of the Qualis and APSRTC as jointly and severally liable to the passenger’s representatives, with inter se liability apportioned equally.

The operative order directed APSRTC to deposit Rs.7,17,600—its 50% share—with interest at 6% per annum from the petition date, within eight weeks.

For Syed Azam Pasha’s death, the Court affirmed assessed compensation of Rs.9,90,000, deducted 50% for his contributory negligence, and directed APSRTC to deposit the net Rs.4,95,000 with the same interest and timeframe.

The Tribunal’s apportionment and disbursement directions were otherwise retained, and the High Court cautioned the Tribunal’s Presiding Officer to ensure that operative orders accord with the judgment’s findings.