Police investigation records, including FIR and charge-sheet, establish prima facie negligence in MACT proceedings.

On 25 August 2011, Nawabbhai Blooch was travelling in a Toofan vehicle bearing registration no. GJ-3-Z-9033 on the Rajsamadhiya–Rajkot road when it collided with GSRTC bus no. GJ-18-Y-3114, resulting in his death.

An FIR was registered against the GSRTC bus driver, followed by a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings. The deceased’s legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli, held the bus driver solely negligent and awarded Rs.10,95,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization.

GSRTC preferred an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, principally contending that the deceased was at least 50% contributorily negligent because the bus was stationary and the Toofan vehicle had come onto the wrong side of the road.

Whether the Tribunal erred in failing to attribute contributory negligence to the deceased while determining compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

Whether the evidence established that the GSRTC bus was stationary and that the deceased’s driving materially contributed to the accident?

Whether the Tribunal’s finding that the accident resulted from the sole negligence of the GSRTC bus driver warranted interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 166 provides the statutory basis for claims arising from motor-vehicle accidents involving death or bodily injury, while Section 173 governs the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court over an award of the Claims Tribunal.

Relying on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo & Ors., 2025 Law Live SC 9, and Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, the Court held that police investigation materials, including the FIR and charge-sheet, constitute admissible and reliable prima facie evidence of rash and negligent driving in motor accident proceedings; a subsequent criminal acquittal does not determine civil/tortious liability.

Relying on Geeta Dubey v. United Insurance Company Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779, the Court reiterated that proceedings under Section 166 are decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and that an appellate court must carefully evaluate the oral and documentary evidence before reversing a reasoned Tribunal award.

The Court found that the FIR, charge-sheet, and continuing criminal proceedings implicated the GSRTC driver, and that neither GSRTC nor the driver had challenged those proceedings as wrongful or unsupported.

The independent eyewitness and first informant testified that the bus approached at high speed and collided with the Toofan vehicle despite the latter attempting to keep to the left side of the road.

Although the GSRTC driver asserted that the bus was stationary, his testimony was treated with caution because he was personally interested in avoiding liability, lacked corroboration, and the alleged theory of a stationary bus had not been put to the first informant in cross-examination.

On a preponderance of probabilities, the Court therefore rejected the bus driver’s version and held that GSRTC had failed to establish any negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

Since the Tribunal’s finding of sole negligence against the bus driver was supported by the record, no appellate interference was warranted.

The finding that the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the GSRTC bus driver was upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s award of Rs.10,95,000 with interest at 9% per annum was confirmed.

The Tribunal was directed to disburse the awarded amount, together with accrued interest, to the claimants after verification and, where necessary, by passing appropriate disbursement orders; applicable court fees were to be deducted if unpaid, and the record was directed to be returned to the Tribunal.