Driver’s failure to testify in rebuttal reinforces liability findings based on FIR and charge sheet.

On February 16, 2006, the claimant was driving a Chevrolet car when a Tata truck driven by Respondent No. 2 turned toward Tejpura village without signaling, resulting in a collision.

The claimant sustained serious injuries and filed MACP No. 363/2006, seeking ₹8,00,000 in compensation.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha, awarded ₹9,64,900 with 8% interest.

The Insurance Company appealed, contending that the accident was a head-on collision and that the car driver was contributorily negligent.

1. Whether the driver of the offending truck was solely negligent for causing the accident or if there was contributory negligence on the part of the car driver.

The court applied the principles of tortious liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, specifically regarding the determination of negligence.

The court relied on the evidentiary value of the First Information Report (FIR), the Panchnama of the accident site, and the filing of a charge sheet by investigating agencies as prima facie evidence of negligence.

It further applied the principle that if an insurer fails to examine the driver of the offending vehicle to rebut the claimant's version, an adverse inference may be drawn against the insurer regarding the plea of contributory negligence.

The court examined the claimant’s testimony (Exh. 30), finding it consistent with the pleadings and unshaken during cross-examination.

It noted that the FIR was lodged against the truck driver and that the police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against him, which was supported by the site Panchnama.

The court rejected the appellant's argument of a "head-on collision" (suggesting mutual negligence) because the appellant failed to produce the truck driver as a witness to rebut the claimant's evidence or provide an alternative version.

Consequently, the court found no error in the Tribunal's finding that the truck driver's sudden turn without signaling constituted sole negligence.

The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed.

The court ordered the transmission of any deposited amounts to the concerned Tribunal and directed the return of Record and Proceedings.