Absence of eyewitnesses is not fatal to proving negligence if FIR and chargesheet are filed.

On July 24, 2016, a scooter driven by deceased Vijay Kumar (20 years old) with pillion rider Anil was struck by a truck (UK-18CA-1231) in Ghaziabad, resulting in fatal injuries to both.

An FIR was lodged and a chargesheet was filed against the truck driver.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) declined the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) on the grounds that the sole witness (the mother) was not an eyewitness and negligence was not proved; instead, it awarded a limited compensation of Rs. 5,22,000 under the structured formula of Section 163A/Second Schedule of the MVA.

The appellants/claimants sought enhancement of this award.

1. Whether a finding of negligence can be returned in the absence of an eyewitness if an FIR and chargesheet have been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle.

2. Whether the compensation awarded by the MACT requires enhancement based on the principles of Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma.

The Court applied the principle that in motor accident claims, the standard of proof is "preponderance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt," as established in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC.

Relying on Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard (2025) and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb (2025), the Court held that where a chargesheet is filed and the driver fails to lead evidence to the contrary, negligence is deemed established even without an eyewitness.

For the computation of quantum, the Court followed Sarla Verma v. DTC regarding multipliers and personal deductions and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi regarding future prospects and conventional heads.

The Court observed that the MACT erred in dismissing the plea of negligence solely due to the absence of an eyewitness.

The Court noted that the site map clearly showed the offending truck suddenly cut in front of the scooter, and since the driver/owner failed to produce evidence to rebut the chargesheet, negligence was established on a preponderance of probabilities.

Consequently, the Court shifted the assessment from the restrictive Section 163A (notional income) to Section 166 principles.

It revised the income based on minimum wages in Uttar Pradesh (Rs. 7,108/month), added 40% for future prospects, applied a multiplier of 18 (for age 20), and deducted 50% for personal expenses as the deceased was a bachelor.

The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs. 6,62,726 with 9% interest per annum.

The Court ordered the immediate release of 1/4th of the amount to the claimants, with the remainder to be secured in staggered FDRs to ensure long-term financial support.