Motor accident negligence may be established on a preponderance of probabilities despite a contrary police charge-sheet.

Naveen Kumar died on 30 November 2020 at Kishanganj Railway Station.

The claimants’ case was that, while another truck was being used to push his disabled truck, the driver of that truck drove negligently and crushed Naveen between the vehicles.

The Tribunal instead accepted a version that Naveen fell while handling a tarpaulin, attributed negligence to the owner for failing to provide safety gear, and awarded ₹28,76,740 with 9% interest, granting the insurer recovery rights against the owner.

The insurer appealed against liability being imposed on it, while the owner challenged the recovery rights.

The High Court reassessed the evidence and found that the Tribunal had reframed the issue around a fall from the tarpaulin, despite the parties having led evidence on the alleged negligence of the other truck’s driver.

1. Whether the death resulted from the deceased falling while handling a tarpaulin or from the negligent driving of truck DL-1GC-6380, and who was liable for the accident.

2. Whether the insurer was liable to satisfy the award and entitled to recover the compensation from the vehicle owner.

The Court assessed the evidence in a motor accident claim on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, rather than treating the police investigation or chargesheet as determinative.

It considered the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including Sections 140, 163A and 166, in the context of the insurer’s submission about the statutory basis for compensation; however, it did not set out a separate statutory test under those provisions.

The Court also considered the FIR and statements recorded during the criminal investigation under Sections 156(3) and 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alongside the medical evidence and the parties’ pleadings.

It held that, in the absence of a pleaded breach of policy terms, the insurer could not retain recovery rights against the owner.

The High Court found the Tribunal had wrongly preferred the chargesheet’s account over the surrounding evidence.

The driver’s and owner’s written statements did not assert that Naveen had fallen while fixing the tarpaulin, and the truck had already been unloaded, making the proposed tarpaulin-related activity less plausible.

The hospital MLC recorded that Naveen had come between two trucks, while the post-mortem report described extensive chest injuries consistent with crushing; this evidence supported the claimants’ account.

The Court also considered the eyewitness’s testimony and the circumstances surrounding the delayed FIR, and concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the accident occurred when truck DL-1GC-6380 was negligently driven during the attempt to push the deceased’s truck.

Since that truck was insured and no policy breach had been pleaded, the insurer was liable and recovery rights against the owner were unsustainable.

It set aside the Tribunal’s recovery rights against the owner, retained the compensation award of ₹28,76,740 with the directions for release made by the Tribunal, and disposed of both appeals.