Eyewitness and documentary evidence established rash and negligent driving, sustaining compensation under Section 166.

Late Kalia Saikia was allegedly struck from behind by Maruti vehicle No. AS-25B-1848 while proceeding towards Pathar Kuwari Tiniali on 18 October 2007. He sustained head injuries, was treated at GMC Hospital and GNRC Hospital, and died on 22 October 2007. His widow filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming ₹15,00,000 as compensation

The appellant, the vehicle owner, denied involvement and asserted that Kalia lost his balance after becoming confused with a motorcycle entering the road; he nevertheless admitted taking the injured person to hospital

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed issues concerning the vehicle’s involvement, rash and negligent driving, entitlement to compensation, and liability

The claimant adduced documentary and oral evidence, including the Accident Information Report, post-mortem report, medical expenses, salary certificate, and death certificate.

The Tribunal awarded ₹8,12,000 with interest at 6% per annum from 4 December 2007. The vehicle owner appealed

1. Whether the accident involving vehicle No. AS-25B-1848 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver and resulted in Kalia Saikia’s death?

2. Whether the claimant was entitled to compensation of ₹8,12,000, and whether the appellant was liable to pay the awarded amount?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which a claimant must establish that death or injury resulted from a motor accident caused by the rash or negligent act of the offending vehicle’s driver.

The Court also applied the appellate principle that interference is unwarranted unless the Tribunal’s findings disclose perversity, legal error, or material infirmity

Although the appellant disputed the vehicle’s involvement and contended that negligence had not been proved, the Court found that the record supported the Tribunal’s conclusion.

The post-mortem report established that Kalia died from ante-mortem head injuries caused by blunt impact consistent with a vehicular incident, and the appellant did not challenge this aspect during cross-examination

The Accident Information Report connected the accident with the appellant’s vehicle, while the eyewitness evidence from the criminal proceedings stated that the vehicle had struck Kalia from behind

The appellant’s own account that he transported the injured person to hospital also supported his presence at the scene, notwithstanding his denial of involvement

On this evidence, the Court held that the Tribunal’s finding of rash and negligent driving was neither perverse nor legally erroneous

It further found no infirmity in the Tribunal’s calculation of ₹8,12,000 or in the award of 6% interest

The Court directed the appellant to deposit the balance of the awarded compensation, together with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition, after giving credit for ₹4,06,000 already deposited and withdrawn by the claimant, within two months

The judgment’s operative direction refers to 4 December 2004 as the interest commencement date, although the earlier discussion and the Tribunal’s award identify 4 December 2007

The Claims Tribunal was directed to disburse the amount to the claimant after verification and identification of her bank account