Driver’s failure to testify and police charge-sheet establish sole negligence in head-on collision liability.

On August 27, 1996, the deceased, Umedsinh Shankersinh Rajput, was driving a bus (GJ-1-Z-3180) from Ahmedabad toward Khokhra.

A tempo (GJ-1-Y-4010), driven at excessive speed and in a rash manner, collided with the bus from the opposite direction.

The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha, awarded the claimants Rs. 7,04,490/- with 9% interest, holding the tempo driver solely responsible.

The Appellant Insurance Company challenged the award, contending that the accident was a head-on collision occurring in the middle of the road, thus necessitating a finding of 50% contributory negligence against the deceased.

1. Whether the deceased driver contributed to the accident by way of negligence, requiring a modification of the liability ratio.

2. Whether the evidence on record supports the Tribunal’s finding of sole negligence on the part of the tempo driver.

The court applied principles of tortious liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically regarding "contributory negligence" and the "burden of proof" in motor accident claims.

The court relied on the evidentiary value of the First Information Report (FIR) and the Panchnama (spot inspection report) to determine the site and cause of impact.

It further applied the principle of adverse inference, noting that when a party (the offending driver) fails to enter the witness box to rebut a prima facie case of negligence, the version of the claimant may be accepted as unchallenged.

The court examined the Appellant’s argument that the head-on nature of the collision implied shared blame.

However, the court found that the FIR, lodged by an eye-witness (the bus conductor), explicitly attributed the fault to the tempo driver.

This was corroborated by the Panchnama (Exh. 65) and the fact that the investigating agency filed a charge-sheet specifically against the tempo driver.

Crucially, the court observed that the tempo driver did not testify to offer an alternative version of the events or to prove that the deceased had veered into the wrong lane.

In the absence of such rebuttal evidence, the court held that the Tribunal’s appreciation of the evidence was sound and the allegation of contributory negligence remained unsubstantiated.

It held that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver.

Consequently, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed for lack of merit.

The court ordered the Registry to remit any statutory deposits to the Tribunal and directed the return of Record & Proceedings.