Delhi HC Sets Aside ₹14.37-Lakh Award To Amputee, Finding Conflicting Accounts Failed To Link Maruti Van To Crash

In brief

The question

Whether, on a preponderance of probabilities, the evidence established that Jaspal Singh’s Maruti van was involved in the accident and that its negligent driving caused Nirpat’s injuries.

The court held

The Court held that negligence by Jaspal Singh’s Maruti van was not proved on a preponderance of probabilities.

It also directed

It allowed the appeal and set aside the MACT’s award.

It stated that the accident could, at most, be treated as a hit-and-run involving the untraced Tata 407, and left the claimants at liberty to pursue relief under Clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme, 1989, or the 2022 Scheme, if applicable.

Pending applications were rendered infructuous.

01Facts

Nirpat claimed compensation for injuries sustained when, while riding pillion on a motorcycle, he was allegedly struck by a Maruti van owned and driven by Jaspal Singh; his leg was later amputated.

¶ 1–5, 17–25

The MACT awarded him ₹14,37,419 with interest, finding the van driver negligent.

¶ 1–5, 17–25

Jaspal Singh appealed, disputing the van’s involvement and pointing to inconsistencies in the claimant’s and eyewitness’s accounts and in the contemporaneous records

¶ 1–5, 17–25

The alleged involvement of a Tata 407, which was never traced, also featured in the evidence

¶ 19–22

02Issues

i.Whether, on a preponderance of probabilities, the evidence established that Jaspal Singh’s Maruti van was involved in the accident and that its negligent driving caused Nirpat’s injuries.

¶ 16, 26–39

ii.Whether the MACT’s award could stand despite material inconsistencies in the evidence and the appellant’s failure to file a written statement or testify before the Tribunal.

¶ 38–40

03Law Applied

In a motor accident claim, negligence and the involvement of the vehicle must be established on a preponderance of probabilities.

¶ 39

An FIR and charge sheet may have persuasive value, but do not displace assessment of the underlying evidence or resolve material inconsistencies.

¶ 38

The Court also referred to Clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme, 1989, framed under Section 163(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and to the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, as possible routes for a claim involving an untraced vehicle.

¶ 41

No judicial precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 161

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279 Section 338

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 146 Section 196 Section 133 Section 163

04Reasoning

The Court found material conflicts between the claimant’s account before the Tribunal and his earlier statement to police, and between his testimony and that of his brother, Mahesh.

¶ 27–37

It also considered the delayed FIR, differing accounts of who took the claimant to hospital, the hospital records identifying other persons as his attendants, uncertainty over who drove the motorcycle, and the lack of confidence-inspiring evidence identifying the Maruti van.

¶ 27–37

The FIR and charge sheet did not cure these inconsistencies; nor did the appellant’s failure to defend the claim before the MACT prevent him from challenging the award on appeal.

¶ 38

Taken together, the evidence did not establish the van’s involvement or negligence on the required standard.

¶ 39