Unexamined FIR against the deceased cannot outweigh credible eyewitness evidence proving the offending vehicle’s negligence.

Sachin Thakur died in a motor-vehicle accident on 15 October 2017 when the scooter he was riding collided with HRTC bus No. HP-65-5696 at Salah, Sundernagar. His parents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against HRTC and the bus driver, alleging rash and negligent driving by the driver.

Sachin was stated to be a 17-year-old student who also undertook agricultural and contractual work. An FIR was registered against Sachin on the statement of Tikshit Sen, allegedly a pillion rider on the scooter. The claimants relied on Suresh Kumar, an alleged eyewitness, who attributed negligence to the bus driver; the driver and HRTC officials asserted that the accident resulted solely from Sachin’s negligence.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹12,96,000 with 9% interest, but treated Sachin as 50% contributorily negligent and consequently limited the claimants’ entitlement to 50% of the assessed compensation.

The claimants challenged the deduction and sought enhancement in FAO (MV) No. 503 of 2019, while HRTC appealed seeking complete exoneration in FAO (MV) No. 201 of 2020.

Whether the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the HRTC bus driver, or by the contributory negligence of the deceased scooter rider?

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation notwithstanding the FIR having been registered against the deceased?

Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal required recalculation or enhancement under the principles governing “just compensation”?

Whether HRTC was liable to pay the compensation, or was entitled to complete exoneration?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, treating a motor-accident claim as a proceeding founded on tortious liability and requiring negligence to be established on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

It held that registration of an FIR is not sine qua non for obtaining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and that an FIR or statement recorded under Section 154 CrPC is not, by itself, conclusive proof of negligence when the maker has not been examined on oath.

For computation of compensation, the Court relied on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, which prescribes the appropriate multiplier, including multiplier 18 for the relevant age group; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, which governs future prospects and compensation under conventional heads, including loss of estate and funeral expenses; and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, recognising the parents’ entitlement to compensation for loss of consortium.

The Court also applied the principle that the Tribunal or Court must award “just compensation” under the beneficial scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court preferred the sworn testimony of PW-3 Suresh Kumar, an independent eyewitness, who consistently stated that the bus driver was driving rashly, was not in his lane, and hit the scooter.

In contrast, the person who lodged the FIR against Sachin was not examined by the respondents, while the bus driver was an interested witness defending the claim. The Court therefore held that the unproved FIR version could not outweigh the eyewitness testimony, particularly because motor-accident proceedings are decided on probabilities and not on the strict criminal standard of proof.

It consequently rejected the Tribunal’s finding of 50% contributory negligence and fixed liability on the bus driver and HRTC.

For quantum, the Court accepted the deceased’s monthly income at ₹7,500, added 40% towards future prospects, deducted 50% for personal expenses, and corrected the resulting monthly contribution to ₹5,250.

Applying multiplier 18, it calculated loss of contribution at ₹11,34,000. It substituted the Tribunal’s award under “loss of love and affection” with the permissible conventional heads: ₹15,000 for loss of estate, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, and ₹80,000 towards parental consortium for both parents.

HRTC’s appeal, FAO (MV) No. 201 of 2020, seeking exoneration was dismissed.

The claimants’ appeal, FAO (MV) No. 503 of 2019, was partly allowed: the Tribunal’s award was modified, and compensation was recalculated at ₹12,44,000, comprising ₹11,34,000 for loss of contribution, ₹15,000 for loss of estate, ₹15,000 for funeral expenses, and ₹80,000 for consortium.

The amount was directed to carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization, with the ultimate liability resting on HRTC/respondent No. 1.