An unproved Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report cannot establish contributory negligence in motor accident claims.

On 18 March 2021 at approximately 2:30 a.m., the deceased was driving truck No. MH-03-C-7202 from Mumbai towards Paradeep when it collided with truck No. OD-19-M-7759 near Gouri Petrol Pump on NH-55 under Jujumura Police Station.

The deceased sustained injuries and was subsequently declared dead at VIMSAR, Burla.

The claimants asserted that the accident resulted from the rash and negligent driving of the opposite truck and that the deceased was earning ₹20,000 per month, in addition to ₹200 per day towards diet expenses.

The claimants filed a claim petition seeking ₹35,00,000 in compensation.

By award dated 4 June 2024 in MAC Case No. 24 of 2021, the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur, assessed the loss of dependency at ₹19,73,160 but reduced the compensation by 50%, holding that both drivers were contributorily negligent.

The Tribunal awarded ₹12,23,080 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing until realization.

The claimants challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, principally disputing the finding of contributory negligence.

The Tribunal had relied upon the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, marked Ext. A/1, although the Motor Vehicle Inspector had not been examined as a witness.

Whether the Tribunal erred in relying upon the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, Ext. A/1, when the Motor Vehicle Inspector had not been examined and subjected to cross-examination?

Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding contributory negligence on the part of both vehicle drivers and consequently reducing the claimants’ compensation by 50%?

Whether the claimants were entitled to restoration of the amount deducted on account of contributory negligence and to enhancement of compensation?

The appeal was maintainable under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits an aggrieved party to challenge an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Court applied the evidentiary principle that a technical or investigative report cannot ordinarily be relied upon as substantive evidence where its maker has not been examined in chief or subjected to cross-examination, particularly when the report is relied upon to determine a disputed question of negligence.

The Court also proceeded on the principle that findings in a motor accident claim must be based on the materials properly proved and assessed by the Tribunal; although the Tribunal is not mechanically bound by the conclusions of a criminal investigation, police statements, the final form, and other contemporaneous materials cannot be disregarded without adequate reason, especially in the absence of rebuttal evidence.

Where contributory negligence is not established, the claimants are entitled to the full loss of dependency rather than a proportionately reduced amount.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had rejected the eyewitness version and the Investigating Officer’s final form while accepting the MVI report, Ext. A/1.

Since the Motor Vehicle Inspector was not examined, there was no opportunity for examination-in-chief or cross-examination regarding the contents, methodology, or conclusions of that report.

The Tribunal therefore committed an error of law in treating the unproved report as a basis for attributing 50% negligence to the deceased’s vehicle.

In contrast, the police investigation and the statements of witnesses indicated that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck.

Those materials were not effectively rebutted and could not properly have been disregarded.

Consequently, the finding of contributory negligence was held to be unsupported, and the 50% reduction in the loss of dependency was found unsustainable.

The claimants were held entitled to the full loss of dependency.

The Court directed that the amount deducted on account of contributory negligence be restored and determined that the claimants were entitled to a further compensation amount of ₹9,86,058.

With the consent of the parties, the respondent-insurance company was directed to deposit a consolidated further compensation of ₹11,00,000 before the Tribunal within eight weeks.

Upon deposit, the Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimants in accordance with law.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.