Unrebutted charge-sheet and police records sustain negligence findings in motor accident claims.

In brief

The question

Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the appellant liable as the driver of the offending Maruti car on the basis of the FIR, panchnama, charge-sheet and other police records.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Tribunal’s judgment and award dated 03 February 2020, including the compensation of ₹12,04,000 with interest at 8% per annum and the liability imposed on the appellant.

It also directed

The connected civil application for stay was rendered infructuous and was accordingly disposed of.

01Facts

On 18 February 2016, Mehulbhai Malaji Chauhan was riding a motorcycle with Chanduji Raijiji Chauhan as pillion rider when it collided with Maruti Car No. GJ-01-KL-8403 allegedly driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction. Both motorcycle occupants died in the accident.

p. 2

The deceased’s parents, unmarried sisters and widow filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of ₹15,00,000.

p. 2

The insurer was deleted as the vehicle was uninsured at the relevant time.

p. 2

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhinagar, awarded ₹12,04,000 with interest at 8% per annum and held the car’s driver jointly and severally liable.

pp. 1–2

In appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant contended that he had been wrongly impleaded as the driver, that he was not driving the car at the time of the accident, and that the vehicle had been sold to Karaninsh Ratansinh Rathod.

p. 4

02Issues

i.Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the appellant liable as the driver of the offending Maruti car on the basis of the FIR, panchnama, charge-sheet and other police records.

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the appellant could avoid liability by asserting in appeal that he was not driving the vehicle and that it had been sold to another person, despite failing to contest the claim proceedings or lead evidence before the Tribunal.

pp. 4–5

iii.Whether the Tribunal’s award of ₹12,04,000 with interest at 8% per annum required interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

pp. 1–2, 6

03Law Applied

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing appeals against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and the principles applicable to proof of negligence in motor accident claims.

It upheld the use of res ipsa loquitur where the circumstances of the accident, together with the available evidence, indicated negligence and remained unchallenged.

¶ 5.1

The Court also relied on Reena v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, 2026 (0) INSC 889, which held that a charge-sheet creates a prima facie case of negligence, criminal acquittal does not displace prima facie civil liability, and a High Court should not summarily overturn a MACT award without applying the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities.

¶ 5.2

An adverse inference may be drawn against a party who, despite opportunity, neither contests the claim nor enters the witness box to rebut the claimant’s evidence.

¶ 5

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173 Section 166

04Reasoning

The Tribunal relied on the FIR, panchnama and the unchallenged allegation that the Maruti car was driven negligently, and applied res ipsa loquitur.

¶ 5.1

The appellant had been served but voluntarily remained absent before the Tribunal; he neither denied the claim nor entered the witness box to establish that he was not driving or that the vehicle had been transferred.

¶ 5

The FIR was lodged by an occupant of the offending car, and the police records, including the charge-sheet, were not challenged.

p. 2, 5

Applying the principle that a charge-sheet constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence and considering the appellant’s failure to adduce rebuttal evidence, the High Court found no basis to disturb the Tribunal’s finding of negligence or its fastening of liability upon the appellant.

¶ 5.2–5.3