Motorcyclist Loses Injury Claim After Trying To Cross Divided Highway Where No Designated Passage Existed: MP HC Upholds Tribunal’s Decision

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained when his motorcycle collided with a Bolero on 22 January 2020.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Datia, dismissed his claim petition. He appealed under Section 173(1) of the Act, with a delay of 615 days; the High Court condoned the delay before considering the appeal on its merits.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay where sufficient grounds are established. Sections 166 and 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, respectively provide for a claim for compensation and an appeal against a Claims Tribunal award.

In motor accident claims, negligence is assessed on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities, and the evidence is considered holistically rather than by the strict criminal standard of proof; however, the claimant must still establish the facts necessary to attribute negligence to the offending vehicle’s driver. The Court relied on Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2019 SC 994, for the approach to assessing evidence in motor accident claims.

The Court accepted the claimant’s explanation for the delay and, noting the absence of a written objection from the Insurance Company, condoned the 615-day delay.

On the merits, the claimant and his son admitted that they were attempting to cross the divided National Highway where no designated divider passage was available, and that a designated U-turn was further ahead. Considering those admissions alongside the spot map, the Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish negligence by the Bolero driver; the FIR and medical records established the accident and injuries but did not, by themselves, prove the driver’s negligence.

The Tribunal’s award was affirmed, with no order as to costs.