Charge-sheet and Site Plan Establishe Prima Facie Negligence Subject to Apportionment for Contributory Negligence

On June 25, 2015, the deceased, Mohd. Tahir, was cycling toward Loni when a dumper truck (HR-63A-7784) struck him from behind, crushing his head and causing fatal injuries

An FIR was registered and the driver was charge-sheeted under Sections 279/304-A of the IPC

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988, holding that the negligence of the truck driver was not established due to inconsistencies in the eyewitness (PW-2) testimony and the site plan, which suggested the bicyclist turned into the truck’s path

The Appellants/claimants challenged this dismissal before the Delhi High Court.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the negligence of the offending vehicle's driver was not established despite the filing of a charge-sheet and eyewitness testimony.

2. Whether the deceased cyclist was liable for contributory negligence based on the site plan indicating a right turn at the time of the accident.

The court applied the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than proof "beyond reasonable doubt" for determining negligence in motor accident claims

It relied on Section 166 and Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988

The court followed ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo [2025 INSC 6] and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb [2025 SCC OnLine SC 497], which establish that a charge-sheet against a driver is sufficient prima facie proof of negligence

For "contributory negligence," the court applied principles from Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer [2003 (8) SCC 731], which allow for the apportionment of liability when a victim's own conduct materially contributes to the harm

The High Court found the MACT’s dismissal of the claim to be erroneous. It reasoned that minor inconsistencies in PW-2’s testimony, recorded eighteen months after the event, should not override the immediate record of the FIR and the fact that the truck driver fled the scene

The Court held that a truck driver, operating a heavy vehicle, bears a higher "duty of care" to maintain control and avoid slow-moving traffic like bicycles

The Court interpreted the site plan and PW-2’s cross-examination to suggest that while the truck was primary at fault, the deceased may have turned right without sufficient caution

Connecting this to the law of torts, the Court determined that the accident resulted from the truck driver's failure to maintain control, mitigated only slightly by the cyclist’s maneuver

The Court set aside the MACT’s judgment, holding the truck driver negligent while attributing 20% contributory negligence to the deceased cyclist

The case was remanded to the MACT for the sole purpose of computing compensation according to settled principles of law, with a direction to decide the matter within three months

The appeal was disposed of in favor of the Appellants