Criminal acquittal does not preclude an independent finding of negligence in MACT proceedings.

On 25 August 2017, the claimant was riding his motorcycle on Sevasi–Bhayli Road when a tractor bearing registration No. GJ-02-CA-7133, allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Appellant No. 1, collided with him. The claimant sustained grievous injuries, underwent treatment, and claimed compensation for medical expenses, loss of income, permanent disability, pain and suffering, and other consequential losses.

He filed MACP No. 108 of 2018 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. By judgment dated 29 February 2024, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,35,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The vehicle driver and owner challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, principally contending that the driver’s acquittal in the connected criminal case disproved negligence.

During the appeal, the appellants failed to deposit the decretal amount as directed, resulting in vacation of the interim stay.

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It reaffirmed that motor accident claims are adjudicated on civil standards and that the degree of culpable rashness required for criminal liability under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code is materially higher than the standard of civil negligence applicable in tort and motor accident claims.

Relying on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. , (2025) 2 SCC 599, the Court held that findings, acquittals, or other outcomes in criminal proceedings do not control or dictate the result of MACT proceedings, which must be independently assessed on civil standards.

An appellate stay may also be vacated where the appellant fails to comply with a condition requiring deposit of the decretal amount.

The appellants relied solely on the driver’s criminal acquittal and argued that the claimant had not sufficiently proved negligence.

The Court rejected this submission because criminal proceedings require proof of culpable rashness to a higher standard, whereas the Tribunal was required to determine civil negligence independently.

The claimant had produced the complaint, FIR, scene panchnama, and charge-sheet at Exhibits 31 to 34. These documents, in the Court’s assessment, prima facie established that Appellant No. 1 had negligently driven the tractor and caused the accident.

Accordingly, the criminal acquittal did not undermine the Tribunal’s finding of negligence or its consequential liability against the driver and owner.

The Court also noted that the appellants had not deposited the decretal amount within the stipulated period, warranting vacation of the stay.

The First Appeal was dismissed, thereby confirming the Tribunal’s award of Rs.7,35,000 with 9% annual interest from the date of the claim petition until realization.

The interim stay had already been vacated for non-compliance with the deposit condition, and the Registry was directed to return the record and proceedings to the concerned Court, if any.