Motor accident negligence cannot be based solely on a post-accident site map without corroborating evidence.

On 20 January 2013, a truck driven by deceased Prabhubhai collided with a tanker near Visnala Bridge. His dependants filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal assessed compensation at ₹8,76,400 but attributed 100% negligence to Prabhubhai, relying, among other things, on the FIR, charge-sheet and accident-site panchnama.

The claimants appealed, contending that the tanker driver had neither filed a written statement nor entered the witness box and that the Tribunal had wrongly assessed negligence.

Whether the Tribunal erred in attributing 100% negligence to the deceased on the basis of the FIR, charge-sheet and panchnama, without sufficient corroborating evidence.

Whether the Tribunal’s judgment and award should be set aside and the claim petition remanded for fresh consideration.

A motor-accident claim is to be determined on the balance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Under Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, a site map cannot, without corroborating evidence, be considered in isolation to establish contributory negligence, and failure to examine a charge-sheeted witness does not by itself defeat a claim.

Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. cautions against inferring speed or wrong-side driving solely from the vehicles’ post-collision positions, particularly where a heavy vehicle may drag a smaller vehicle.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chamundeswari recognises that direct eyewitness evidence before the Tribunal is to be given greater weight than the FIR where they conflict.

Under Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., an adverse inference may be drawn against a driver or owner who remains ex parte and does not enter the witness box to rebut the claimants’ evidence.

The claim was brought under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The High Court found that the Tribunal had treated the FIR, charge-sheet and post-accident panchnama as determinative, although the site evidence could not independently establish negligence and the vehicles’ positions after impact were not conclusive.

It also found that the Tribunal had incorrectly read the claimant’s cross-examination as an admission that the deceased was on the wrong side.

The tanker driver had neither filed a written statement nor testified, yet the Tribunal drew no adverse inference against him. In the Court’s view, these errors left the finding of 100% negligence unsupported by sufficient evidence and contrary to the applicable principles for assessing negligence in motor-accident claims.

It directed the Tribunal to decide the matter as early as possible and no later than three months from 13 October 2026.