Contradictory testimony about the accident failed to establish the car driver’s negligence.

The claimant sought compensation for injuries allegedly sustained when his motorcycle struck the rear of a car after its driver applied the brakes.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the claimant had not proved negligence by the car’s driver; it relied in part on the FIR, which named the motorcycle rider.

The claimant appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

In the appeal, the High Court considered the claimant’s and eyewitness’s testimony, including inconsistencies about the manner of the accident.

1. Whether the claimant proved that the accident was caused by the rash or negligent driving of the car’s driver, warranting interference with the Tribunal’s dismissal of the claim.

2. Whether the claimant was nevertheless entitled to relief on the principle of no-fault liability.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

The Court assessed whether the evidence established negligence by the car’s driver and whether the Tribunal’s finding should be disturbed.

It also directed payment on the principle of no-fault liability, but did not identify a specific statutory provision or cite any precedent for that direction.

The claimant and PW2 attributed the collision to the car driver’s rash driving and sudden braking, but the Court found their accounts inconsistent with the claim petition and with each other.

PW2 stated in cross-examination that the motorcycle rider hit the rear of the car; the claimant also admitted that he had not complained against the car’s driver, while the FIR named the motorcycle rider.

In the absence of sufficiently consistent evidence proving the car driver’s negligence, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding and declined to interfere.

It separately granted limited relief on a no-fault basis.

No costs were ordered.

The insurer was nevertheless directed to deposit ₹25,000 for the claimant on the principle of no-fault liability within four weeks; upon deposit, the claimant may withdraw the amount by applying to the Tribunal.