Criminal acquittal alone does not negate negligence established through prosecution records in motor accident claims.

The claimants, the deceased Ramegowda’s wife and four children, sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that an LML Freedom motorcycle owned by the appellant struck Ramegowda’s bicycle and caused his death

The appellant denied involvement of his motorcycle, asserted that a Bajaj Pulsar had caused the accident, and relied, among other things, on an MLC register extract and evidence relating to the criminal proceedings

The Tribunal found the appellant’s vehicle responsible and awarded ₹7,27,119 with interest at 8% per annum, holding the owner liable

The owner appealed under Section 173(1) of the Act

Whether the appellant’s motorcycle was falsely implicated in the accident and the Tribunal erred in finding the appellant liable

Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimants may rely on prosecution records to substantiate actionable negligence; the Court, relying on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo, (2025) 2 SCC 599, stated that such reliance shifts the burden to the owner to establish otherwise

A criminal-court acquittal does not, by itself, require the same finding in a motor-accident claim, and inconsistent positions in separate proceedings are relevant circumstances but do not automatically determine which version is true

The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Act

The Court considered the prosecution material supporting the claimants’ account, including the FIR, charge sheet, spot records and evidence of PW.2

Although the MLC extract recorded different motorcycle details, the corrections were not countersigned, and the doctor did not explain or establish that they were authorised; the extract therefore did not prove false implication

The Court also found the owner’s eyewitness, RW.3, unreliable in light of omissions and admissions, and found no basis in the vehicle inspection report to conclude that the motorcycle had been falsely implicated

The alleged inconsistency between PW.1 and PW.2, the road’s potholes, and the criminal proceedings did not displace the Tribunal’s finding on the evidence as a whole

The appeal was dismissed, and the amount deposited was ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for payment