Prompt FIR, chargesheet, and surrounding circumstances establish vehicular negligence on a preponderance of probabilities.

On 03 November 2016 at approximately 11:30 a.m., Phoolwati was walking near the Pradhan’s house at Sangam Vihar, Loni, Ghaziabad, when she was allegedly hit by a Celerio car bearing registration no. HR-55W-8629, driven by Deepak Bakshi in a rash and negligent manner.

She was taken to Gopal Hospital, where she was declared “brought dead”.

Her son Rahul lodged a written complaint shortly thereafter, and an FIR was registered at 1:00 p.m. on the same day; the investigation culminated in a chargesheet under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, and the vehicle’s mechanical inspection recorded damage to its front portion.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claimants had failed to prove rash and negligent driving, principally because it found Rahul’s testimony unreliable.

The deceased’s legal representatives challenged that award before the High Court.

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which compensation requires proof, on a preponderance-of-probabilities standard, that the accident resulted from the offending vehicle’s rash or negligent driving.

It relied on Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, for the principle that the prompt registration of an FIR and filing of a chargesheet may support a finding of negligence even where eyewitnesses are not examined.

The Court also applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, under which the nature and surrounding circumstances of an accident may constitute prima facie evidence of negligence and shift the evidentiary burden to the person controlling the instrumentality causing the injury.

The Court further held that the driver and owner had the evidentiary burden to provide an explanation consistent with due care once such prima facie inference arose.

The Court found that the vehicle’s involvement was strongly supported by the contemporaneous record: the accident and complaint occurred on the same day, the FIR specifically identified vehicle no. HR-55W-8629, the site plan depicted the vehicle taking a turn and colliding with the pedestrian, and the chargesheet was filed within ten days.

These circumstances left no meaningful possibility that the vehicle had been subsequently introduced into the case.

The Court also held that Rahul’s testimony could not be discarded merely because he had not expressly stated in his examination-in-chief that he was accompanying his mother; he had described the accident, identified the vehicle, immediately reported the incident and accompanied the deceased to the hospital and mortuary.

Minor discrepancies concerning the precise timing, the police’s arrival and the name of the post-mortem hospital were treated as non-determinative in the circumstances.

In addition, the accident involved a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle at a turn, thereby permitting an inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur.

The owner did not provide any substantive explanation or establish that the vehicle was elsewhere, and the driver was not examined to rebut the claim.

Accordingly, the Tribunal had applied an unduly strict standard in rejecting the claim.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s rejection of the claim petition was set aside in substance.

Since the quantum of compensation had not been determined, the matter was remanded to the MACT for computation of compensation.

The parties were directed to appear before the MACT on 01 October 2026, and the Tribunal was requested to endeavour to conclude the proceedings within five months.