FIR and Charge Sheet Establish Negligence in Motor Accident Claims Under Preponderance of Probabilities

On May 29, 2017, Jaspal Singh Kanda and Vijay Kumar were traveling on a scooter near Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, when they were struck by a U.P. Roadways bus driven by Mohd. Gulzar.

Both occupants succumbed to their injuries.

In the first case (Kanda), the Rohini MACT awarded Rs. 29,28,600/- holding the bus driver negligent.

In the second case (Kumar), the South-West MACT dismissed the claim, citing a lack of proof of negligence.

The Corporation appealed the first award alleging contributory negligence, while the LRs of Vijay Kumar appealed the dismissal of the second award.

1. Whether the findings of the two Tribunals regarding the negligence of the driver were consistent and legally sustainable based on the available evidence.

2. Whether the lack of an eyewitness precludes a finding of rash and negligent driving in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Whether the compensation awarded in the first award was just and whether the interest rate required modification.

The Court applied the test of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" for motor accident inquiries.

It relied on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) to shift the burden of proof when facts are within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant.

The Court cited Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2021) regarding the non-necessity of eyewitnesses.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal (2007) regarding the onus to establish negligence under Section 166.

Ranjeet v. Abdul Nayem Keb (2025) and Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard (2025) establish that a police charge-sheet is sufficient to prima facie prove negligence in the absence of rebuttal.

Quantum was determined using Sarla Verma v. DTC (2009) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017).

The Court found the driver’s testimony (R1W2) inconsistent and contradicted by physical evidence.

While the driver claimed the scooter came from the opposite direction, the site plan and his own cross-examination admitted both vehicles were moving in the same direction.

The site plan showed the bus veered into the scooter's path, invoking res ipsa loquitur.

The driver admitted to being suspended and sent for training by the Department as punishment.

The Court noted that in summary inquiries under the MV Act, the filing of an FIR and charge-sheet against the driver is sufficient to establish negligence on a preponderance of probabilities, especially when the driver fails to provide a credible alternative version.

The claim of contributory negligence was rejected as the Corporation failed to elicit any facts during cross-examination to support it.

In MAC.APP. 444/2023, the matter was remanded to the MACT for limited determination of quantum.

In MAC.APP. 20/2022, the Court affirmed the compensation calculation but modified the interest rate from 9% to 7.25% per annum, aligning it with RBI prevailing rates.

The Corporation was directed to release the balance 50% of the awarded amount to the claimants within six weeks.