Unchallenged eyewitness testimony, corroborated by the charge-sheet, establishes the offending vehicle’s negligence.

On 29 July 2023, Rajju Sahu was working in a field when tractor No. CG-04-NJ-6469 was allegedly driven rashly and negligently by Pradeep Kumar Sahu.

The tractor climbed an embankment, was left unattended in a running condition, and rolled over Rajju Sahu, causing fatal injuries.

An FIR was registered under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, and the police filed a charge-sheet against the tractor driver.

The deceased’s wife, mother, father, and siblings instituted a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The driver, owner, and insurer were served but did not file a defence, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, consequently passed an ex parte award dated 29 August 2025, awarding ₹18,93,600 with interest at 7% per annum against the insurer.

The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the deceased himself was driving the tractor, that the claimants were therefore not entitled to compensation, and that the deceased’s monthly income of ₹9,000 had been assessed without sufficient proof.

1. Whether the Claims Tribunal erred in holding the tractor driver responsible for the accident, despite the insurer’s contention that the deceased himself was driving the tractor?

2. Whether the Tribunal improperly assessed the deceased’s monthly income at ₹9,000 in the absence of documentary proof of employment or earnings?

3. Whether the ex parte award of ₹18,93,600 with 7% annual interest required appellate interference?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Section 166, under which legal representatives may seek compensation for death arising from a motor accident.

The Court assessed negligence on the basis of the evidence recorded before the Tribunal, including oral testimony, the FIR, and the police charge-sheet.

It treated the FIR as corroborative material rather than conclusive proof, particularly where the person who lodged it was not examined.

For assessing loss of dependency, the Court accepted a reasonable estimation of income where exact documentary proof was unavailable; in any event, the monthly income of ₹9,000 was below the applicable minimum wage of ₹9,960 for an unskilled worker on the date of the accident.

The Court rejected the insurer’s argument that the deceased was driving the tractor.

Although the FIR mentioned the deceased’s name in the relevant column, the informant was not examined to prove that assertion.

Conversely, Amar Singh, examined on behalf of the claimants, gave unchallenged testimony supporting the claimants’ account of the accident.

The police investigation culminated in a charge-sheet against Pradeep Kumar Sahu, identifying him as the tractor driver responsible for the accident.

The Court therefore found no basis to displace the Tribunal’s finding of negligence.

The Court also rejected the challenge to the income assessment.

Since the accident occurred on 29 July 2023 and the applicable minimum wage for an unskilled worker was ₹9,960 per month, the Tribunal’s assessment of ₹9,000 per month was not excessive; rather, it was lower than the statutory minimum wage benchmark.

The evidentiary record consequently supported the award, and no material error or perversity warranting appellate interference was established.

The Tribunal’s award of ₹18,93,600 with 7% annual interest in favour of claimants 1 to 3 was consistent with the oral and documentary evidence on record.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the Tribunal’s record was directed to be returned for necessary compliance.