Failure To Allege Negligence In Police Statement Does Not By Itself Defeat Motor Accident Claim: Bombay High Court

The Court said that police papers constitute only one circumstance and must be considered alongside the claimant’s oral evidence and the circumstances from which negligence may be inferred.

The Court was hearing a first appeal challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane’s Award dismissing a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had concluded that the claimant was responsible for the accident.

A Bench of Justice S.M. Modak observed: “I have read the Police statement at Exhibit–55. The claimant has stated how the accident has taken place, how the TMT bus driver overtook the MSRTC bus which was stationary and how he has fallen down. Even though there is no mention about negligence, the Court can infer on the basis of circumstance. The Claim Petition is not to be decided only on the basis of Police papers. The Police papers is one of the circumstances. But it has to be coupled with the oral evidence.”

Advocate T.J. Mendon appeared for the appellant. Advocate Vedant Bende appeared for Thane Municipal Transport; Advocate P.M. Bhansali appeared for MSRTC; and Additional Government Pleader Rashmi S. Tendulkar appeared for the Director of Insurance.

Background

The claimant stated that he boarded a crowded TMT bus in Thane on August 4, 1998, and had to stand on its footboard. According to him, the TMT bus overtook a stationary MSRTC bus and grazed it, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.

The claimant sought compensation of ₹1.25 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. TMT did not file a written statement but examined its traffic controller, while MSRTC denied negligence and examined a traffic inspector. The Court noted that neither witness was a witness to the manner in which the accident occurred.

The Court noted that the Tribunal had observed that the claimant had not stated the registration number of either bus and that there was no dent on either bus. The Tribunal also considered his police statement, which did not mention that negligence by the TMT or MSRTC driver had caused his injuries. It concluded that the claimant was negligent, noting that he had stood on the footboard in a dangerous position, and dismissed the petition.

Court’s Observations

Police Statement Was Only One Circumstance

The Court held that the absence of an express allegation of negligence in the police statement could not defeat the claim when the claimant had explained how the accident occurred. It further stated that the absence of a criminal prosecution against either driver was not the sole circumstance for determining negligence.

The Court held: “Not mentioning the TMT bus or the MSRTC bus driver in the Police statement will not non suit the claimant. The contents of Police statement is one of the circumstance. But, if there is oral evidence thereby explaining the manner of accident, the Tribunal can certainly consider it. That is how it is considered by this Court.”

The Court observed that the Tribunal had focused only on the claimant’s conduct without properly considering the manner in which the TMT driver overtook the stationary bus.

Registration Number Was Not Essential

The Court held that the claimant was not required to prove the registration number of the bus and that it was sufficient if he described it as a TMT or MSRTC bus. It noted that the accident occurred immediately after he boarded the TMT bus and that his immediate priority after falling was to protect himself.

The Court observed: “There could not be any question for him to see and note the registration number of any of the buses, because his priority is to save him. There is no record that any bus of MSRTC and TMT has met with an accident on the relevant date at the relevant spot. It may be for several reasons. It is not required for the claimant to prove what was the registration number of the bus. It is sufficient if he describes that it is TMT bus or MSRTC bus.”

The Court distinguished Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited (2025), Vanita v. Shriram Insurance Company Ltd. (2025) and Mohammed Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) on their facts.

TMT Driver And Claimant Were Both At Fault

The Court agreed that the claimant had contributed to the accident by standing on the footboard while carrying an article. It also noted, however, that the bus was crowded and that the conductor had not asked him not to board.

The Court found that the TMT driver had failed to exercise proper care while overtaking the stationary MSRTC bus. It found no evidence that the MSRTC bus had been parked improperly and consequently affirmed the Tribunal’s finding exonerating the MSRTC driver.

The Court observed: “At the same time, it is true that the driver of the TMT bus took his bus in such a manner that it has grazed the stationary MSRTC bus. The issue is why he grazed the bus with MSRTC bus. It may be due to fast speed or not paying attention to the parking of MSRTC bus. There is every reason to believe that driver of TMT bus has not taken precaution while overtaking MSRTC bus. The claimant’s hand struck S.T.Bus. He took ahead his bus without taking proper precaution. That is the reason why the claimant has fallen down and sustained injuries.”

The Court stated that it considered the liability of the claimant to be 25% and that of the TMT bus driver 75%.

Compensation Quantified At ₹2.10 Lakh

The Court declined compensation on account of loss of income due to disability, stating that there was no evidence of how the disability affected the claimant’s earning capacity and that the evidence suggested he was promoted.

The Court noted that, as held in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011), there may not be any need to award compensation for loss of future earnings if a claimant continues in government service, though compensation may be awarded for loss of amenities.

The Court quantified the compensation at ₹2,10,365 under heads including medical and future medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendance charges, loss of comfort and amenities, conveyance charges and special diet.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the appeal against the Tribunal’s Award dismissing the claim petition. It directed the Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport, and the Director of Insurance, Government of Maharashtra, to pay ₹2,10,365 jointly and severally within 12 weeks, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realisation.

The Court stated that the apportionment of negligence was only for calculating loss of income and not for expenses incurred and to be incurred. It directed that any amount granted towards no-fault liability be deducted and that the additional court fee be paid before the Tribunal. Pending applications were also disposed of.

Cause Title: Mohan Laxman Chavan v. The Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:42966)

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate T.J. Mendon

Respondents: Advocate Vedant Bende, instructed by Advocate Mandar Limaye; Advocates P.M. Bhansali and Arafat Siddique; Additional Government Pleader Rashmi S. Tendulkar

Click here to read/download Judgment