Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD & ANR

1. This appeal has been filed by claimant [appellant herein] challenging the dismissal of claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Court, New Delhi [“Tribunal”] vide judgement dated 27th November 2018 in MACT No.126/2018 [“impugned award”]. Incident

2. On 06th March 2018, at about 01:45 A.M., Sh. Radhey Shyam [hereinafter referred to as “deceased”] was travelling on a motorcycle from Baghpat to Sonia Vihar, when, upon reaching Pooja Colony Cut, Loni, Ghaziabad, a vehicle bearing no. ‘HR-26DF-1028’, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, suffered grievous injuries, and succumbed thereto.

3. Deceased post-mortem was conducted at the District Hospital, MAC.APP. 132/2019 2/5 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, and FIR No. 143/2018 dated 06th March 2018 under Sections 279/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [“IPC”] was registered at Police Station Tronica City, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, against respondent No.2.

4. Deceased was married and was survived by his wife [Sunita/appellant no.1 herein] and minor child [Ravi Kumar/appellant no.2 herein], who, being the sole legal heirs, filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [“MV Act”] before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of loss of dependency, future and prospective income, loss of human life, care and support in old age, and for the pain, suffering, mental shock, agony, and hardship suffered by the appellants due to the death of Sh. Radhey Shyam.

5. Respondents were duly summoned, respondent no.2/driver and the respondent no.1/Insurance Company filed their respective written statements, and issues were framed by the Tribunal on 06th September 2018. In support of their case, appellants examined Smt. Sunita [PW-1], who deposed by way of affidavit [Exhibit PW1/A] regarding the income, occupation, and legal heirs of the deceased; Sh. Nandram [PW-2], deposed by way of an affidavit [Exhibit PW2/A] as to the manner and occurrence of the accident; Sh. Prahlad Bhatt [PW-3], proved the salary, service, and increment records of the deceased [Exhibit PW3/2]; and Sub Inspector J.P. Upadhyay [PW-4], proved the chargesheet [Exhibit PW1/6] and the investigation; however, the claim petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed by the Tribunal Impugned Award

6. Tribunal in the impugned award dismissed the claim petition filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the MV Act, holding that the appellants had MAC.APP. 132/2019 3/5 failed to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing no. ‘HR-26DF-1028’. The Tribunal proceeded on the premise that proof of negligence is a sine qua non for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act and that the burden to prove such negligence lay squarely upon the claimants.

7. While appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal observed that appellant no.1 [PW-1], wife of the deceased, was not an eyewitness to the accident and had received information regarding the incident second-hand. With respect to Sh. Nandram, PW-2, who was examined as an eyewitness, the Tribunal found his testimony to be unreliable, noting material inconsistencies between the initial complaint, which referred to a tractor-trolley as the offending vehicle, and the subsequent deposition attributing the accident to a car. The Tribunal further noted that Sh. Nandram, PW-2, had neither informed the police, nor taken the injured to the hospital, nor lodged the FIR, and that his presence at the site of the accident was not satisfactorily established.

8. The Tribunal further held that the mere registration of an FIR and filing of a chargesheet were not, in themselves, sufficient to establish negligence, even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Relying upon judicial precedents, the Tribunal concluded that, in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence proving rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent no.1/driver, the claim petition could not be sustained. Consequently, issue no.1 relating to negligence and issue no.2 relating to entitlement to compensation were both decided against the claimants, and the claim petition was dismissed. Analysis

9. Mr. Anshuman Bal, counsel appearing on behalf of MAC.APP. 132/2019 4/5 claimants/appellants, states that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that an FIR had been lodged, the statement of Mr. Nandram, eyewitness [PW-2] had been recorded, and pursuant thereto a chargesheet had been filed agaist the driver of the offending vehicle. He further contends that once the issue of negligence was already proved post investigation, by filing chargesheet, there was no reason why the claims were not considered or at the very least, assessed by the Tribunal.

10. For this, counsel for appellant relies on decisions of the Supreme Court in Ranjit & Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497 and Meerabai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard 2025 SCC OnLine SC 992, wherein it has been held that even in the absence of direct eyewitnesses, but an FIR has been lodged and the chargesheet has been filed against the owner driver of the offending vehicle, the Court was of the opinion that there could be no finding that negligence was not established.

11. By order dated 1st September 2023, Court Notice had been issued to respondent no.2/driver; however, none appeared despite service. Conclusion

12. In this view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall reassess the issue of negligence on the basis of the evidence already on record, uninfluenced by its earlier findings vide impugned award dated 27th November 2018, and thereafter proceed to determine the compensation, if so payable to the claimants, in accordance with law.

13. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal and the impugned award dated 27th November 2018 is set aside.

14. Accordingly, list before MACT on 10th March 2026. MAC.APP. 132/2019 5/5

15. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.