Pending 2005 accident claim gets ₹2.5 lakh no-fault compensation despite failure to prove driver’s negligence under Section 166, MP High Court rules

Manoj Kumar filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that he sustained serious spinal injuries on 29.03.2005 while travelling as a pillion rider on motorcycle No. MP-05-AF-2518. He alleged that Mukesh Kumar, the driver, suddenly accelerated and drove rashly and negligently, causing him to fall from the motorcycle. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal accepted the claim, assessed his permanent disability at 75%, and awarded compensation with interest

The National Insurance Company challenged the finding of negligence and its liability in M.A. No. 5417 of 2007. Manoj Kumar filed M.A. No. 993 of 2008 seeking enhancement of compensation

The claimant had not lodged an FIR, there was no independent eyewitness, and the medical evidence established the injuries but not the manner of driving

Whether the claimant established, on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident was caused by the rash or negligent driving of respondent No. 1 so as to sustain a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

Whether the absence of an FIR, independent eyewitness testimony, and contemporaneous police investigation undermined the claimant’s allegation of negligent driving?

Whether, despite failure to establish negligence under Section 166, the claimant could receive fixed compensation under the no-fault liability provision contained in Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is based on fault liability, and the claimant must establish the foundational fact that the accident resulted from the rash or negligent act of the vehicle’s driver, on a preponderance of probabilities

Negligence cannot be presumed merely from the occurrence of an accident or the existence of injuries. Relying on Prabhavathi v. Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, 2025 INSC 293, and the principles in Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Kumari Kiran v. Sajjan Singh, the Court held that a mere allegation of high speed or rashness, without direct or corroborative evidence, is insufficient

The Court also relied on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, (2007) 5 SCC 428, and Surender Kumar Arora v. Dr. Manoj Bisla, (2012) 4 SCC 552, for the requirement of proving the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, and rash and negligent driving

Section 164 provides fixed compensation on a no-fault basis and expressly dispenses with proof of wrongful act, neglect, or default; the Court relied on Ram Murti v. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2022 (4) TAC 738, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Urmila Halder, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983, in extending the benefit of the beneficial provision to pending proceedings

The Court held that the claimant’s assertion that the motorcycle suddenly accelerated was substantially unsupported by independent evidence. Although the claimant was an injured pillion rider, his testimony was not conclusive on the issue of negligence

The absence of an FIR was not treated as independently decisive, but it assumed significance alongside the absence of police investigation and independent eyewitness evidence

The doctor’s evidence proved the injuries and treatment but could not establish how the motorcycle was being driven

The Court further observed that the motorcycle did not collide with another object and that the driver did not fall, and concluded that the claimant had failed to prove negligent driving even on the civil standard of probability

Accordingly, the Section 166 claim could not be sustained. However, since the accident and resultant permanent disability were found to have arisen from the use of a motor vehicle, the Court applied the beneficial no-fault regime under Section 164 to grant fixed compensation notwithstanding the failure to prove negligence

M.A. No. 993 of 2008 filed by Manoj Kumar for enhancement was dismissed

Nevertheless, the claimant was awarded Rs. 2,50,000 under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the judgment until realization

The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and both appeals were disposed of accordingly