An injured eyewitness’s credible testimony establishes negligence despite a contrary site plan and criminal acquittal.

On 09.11.2007, Sandeep Kumar Saini was riding motorcycle No. UA-08J-8903 when it collided with Santro car No. UA-08A-8586, owned and driven by respondent No. 2.

The claimant sustained injuries to his head, hand and leg and underwent treatment at different hospitals. He filed a claim petition seeking compensation of ₹6,06,000.

The insurer contested the claim, alleging that the accident resulted from the claimant’s own negligence, that he was driving on the wrong side of the road, and that he was not wearing a helmet.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held the car driver negligent and awarded ₹3,17,014 with interest at 6% per annum, comprising ₹2,45,014 towards medical expenses, ₹54,000 for 54% permanent disability and ₹18,000 for loss of income.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of car No. UA-08A-8586, or due to the claimant’s negligence in driving his motorcycle on the wrong side of the road.

Whether the alleged absence of valid documents, driving licence or helmet on the part of the claimant or the vehicle occupants affected liability under the claim.

Whether the compensation of ₹3,17,014 awarded by the Tribunal was excessive or otherwise warranted interference in appeal.

The appeal was governed by Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an appeal against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

In motor accident claim proceedings, negligence is determined on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, and the testimony of an injured eyewitness may be relied upon where it is credible and is not effectively rebutted.

A site plan that does not fully support the claimant’s version is not, by itself, sufficient to reject credible testimony, particularly where there is no convincing evidence proving the claimant’s negligence.

An acquittal in related criminal proceedings is not conclusive of negligence in civil claim proceedings; the Tribunal must independently assess the evidence before it.

An appellate court will not interfere with the Tribunal’s findings on negligence or quantum unless they are perverse or unsupported by the record.

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the car driver was negligent.

The claimant, being an injured eyewitness, specifically testified that the car was driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and collided with his motorcycle.

His evidence was not effectively rebutted by the owner or driver of the car.

Although the insurer relied on the site plan to contend that the claimant was driving on the wrong side, the claimant disputed the correctness of the site plan, and the Tribunal had assessed both the oral and documentary evidence before accepting his version.

The High Court held that the site plan alone did not establish contributory negligence.

The driver’s acquittal in the criminal case also did not displace the Tribunal’s independent finding in the compensation proceedings.

The Court further found that the compensation was based on the material available on record and that no ground for appellate interference had been established.

It found no perversity in the Tribunal’s findings on negligence and no basis to alter the compensation of ₹3,17,014 with 6% interest per annum.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 13.07.2012 were affirmed.

The Tribunal was directed to release the awarded amount, including the statutory deposit, to the claimant in accordance with law, after giving credit for any amount already released.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of and the record was directed to be transmitted to the concerned court.