An insurer must prove contributory negligence through admissible evidence, not unproved investigation records.

On 2 January 2016, Abdul Rahim was riding his motorcycle near Dimrapal Medical College when a motorcycle insured by the appellant, driven by Sachin Jaiswal, struck him.

Abdul Rahim later died while receiving treatment.

His wife, children and parents sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded them ₹44,02,252 with interest and held the insurer liable.

The insurer appealed, arguing that the deceased had contributed to the accident through his own negligence.

1. Whether the insurer established that the deceased was contributorily negligent in causing the accident

2. Whether the Tribunal’s compensation award and finding of the insurer’s liability warranted interference in the insurer’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides the basis for a claim for compensation arising from a motor-vehicle accident, while Section 173 provides for an appeal against the Claims Tribunal’s award.

A party alleging contributory negligence must support that allegation with relevant, legally usable evidence.

The Court held that an insurer’s administrative officer who was neither an eyewitness nor involved in the investigation could not establish the deceased’s negligence merely by producing the insurer’s investigation material; police-investigation documents should be proved through a competent witness, such as the investigating officer or the person who made the relevant complaint or statement.

No precedent was cited.

The insurer relied on testimony from its administrative officer and investigator, together with documents collected from the police investigation.

The Court found that the administrative officer had no direct knowledge of the accident and that the investigator’s evidence did not competently prove the police records or establish the deceased’s negligence.

The insurer also failed to call the insured vehicle’s driver, Sachin Jaiswal, whom the Court identified as a material witness available to it.

In contrast, the claimants’ evidence, including the witness’s account and the police materials referred to by that witness, supported the finding that the insured vehicle’s driver caused the accident through negligent driving.

The insurer therefore failed to establish contributory negligence warranting a reduction in compensation.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s record was directed to be returned for necessary follow-up.