Rear-end collision and site plan evidence override absence of eyewitnesses to establish driver negligence in motor accidents.

The appellant, Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (UTC), challenged the judgment of the MACT dated May 21, 2013, which awarded ₹9,79,599 for a fatal accident involving deceased Bharat Kumar

On April 23, 2011, the deceased’s motorcycle was hit from behind by a UTC bus (offending vehicle) driven rashly on the GT Road Flyover, resulting in his death

The appellant contended that the deceased was negligent while overtaking from the left

A cross-appeal (MAC.APP. 198/2014) had previously enhanced the compensation to ₹15,89,060 on April 9, 2026

1. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in causing the accident

2. Whether the assessment of the deceased's monthly income based on minimum wages for a matriculate was correct in the absence of documentary proof of income

The court applied the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" for determining negligence in motor accident claims

Regarding the assessment of income, it relied on the guidelines summarized in Savita v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2026), which allow the use of minimum wage benchmarks (unskilled, skilled, or matriculate) as a guidepost when documentary proof of income is absent, especially for students with future potential

It further adhered to the quantum alignment principles (loss of estate, future prospects, etc.) established in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017)

The Court rejected the appellant's version that the deceased slipped while overtaking from the left. By examining the site plan and Mechanical Inspection Report, the Court found the motorcycle was hit from the rear on the rightmost part of the lane near the divider, contradicting the driver’s (R1W1) testimony

Although the Court agreed that the eyewitness (PW2) lacked credibility due to the FIR stating no witnesses were found, it upheld the finding of negligence based on the physical evidence of a rear-end collision recorded in the site plan

Regarding quantum, the Court affirmed the MACT’s use of minimum wages for a matriculate, as the 23-year-old deceased was a B.A. student and the assessment followed the "intelligent guesswork" and approximation standards required for student victims

The compensation amount, as enhanced in the cross-appeal to ₹15,89,060 with 7.5% interest, was maintained, and the appellant was directed to release the deposited amount to the claimants. The statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded to the Corporation