Medico-Legal Certificate Alone Not Determinative Of Exact Time Of Accident: Delhi High Court Upholds MACT Compensation Award
The High Court held that the time mentioned in a Medico-Legal Certificate cannot by itself be treated as conclusive proof of the exact timing of an accident, particularly where surrounding evidence indicates that the accident may have occurred earlier.
The Delhi High Court held that the time recorded in a Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) cannot alone be treated as determinative of the exact timing of an accident, particularly where the accident could have occurred earlier, and the injured was brought to the hospital subsequently.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Rohini Courts, which had granted compensation to the legal heirs of a deceased who died in a road accident involving a stationary truck.
A Bench of Justice Anish Dayal examined the challenge to the MACT award, which had granted compensation of ₹35,11,000 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum to the claimants, and observed: “Counsel for appellant/Insurance Company also relied on Medico- Legal Certificate (‘MLC’), as per which the alleged accident took place at 5:00 am, however, this would not be determinative of the timing of accident, if the accident had happened before that time”.
Background
The case arose out of a road accident that occurred in June 2023 when the deceased was travelling in a small commercial vehicle transporting vegetables from Delhi to Faridabad. According to the claimants, the accident occurred at around 4:30 a.m. when the deceased’s vehicle collided with a truck that had been parked in the middle of the road on the wrong side without any indicators or warning signals.
The legal heirs of the deceased, including his wife, minor child and parents, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for his death.
The Tribunal framed issues relating to negligence and entitlement to compensation. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the parked truck. The Tribunal relied on the testimony of the father of the deceased, the FIR and the charge-sheet filed in the criminal case to hold that the offending vehicle had been parked in a dangerous position on the road.
The Tribunal accordingly awarded compensation by computing the loss of dependency based on minimum wages applicable to an unskilled worker and applying the appropriate multiplier along with prospects and conventional heads of compensation.
The insurance company challenged the award before the High Court.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the contention of the insurance company that the accident should be treated as a case of contributory negligence since the deceased’s vehicle had collided with the stationary truck from the rear.
The Court noted that the evidence on record showed that the offending vehicle had been parked on the wrong side of the carriageway without any indicators, reflectors, or warning signals. The testimony of the father of the deceased, which was supported by the FIR and charge sheet, indicated that the truck had been abandoned in the middle of the road without safety measures.
The Court observed that neither the driver nor the owner of the offending vehicle had entered the witness box to rebut these allegations or to demonstrate that proper precautionary measures had been taken while parking the vehicle. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in drawing an adverse inference against them.
The Court also discussed the legal position relating to accidents involving stationary vehicles and contributory negligence. Referring to several decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court noted that vehicles cannot be abandoned or parked in a manner that creates danger or obstruction to other road users. Where a vehicle is left stationary on a public road without adequate warnings or indicators, negligence is ordinarily attributable to the person responsible for leaving the vehicle in such a position.
The Court further examined the argument of the insurance company that the accident should have been attributed partly to the deceased since the MLC recorded the time of the accident as 5:00 a.m., whereas the claimants had asserted that the accident occurred earlier. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that the time mentioned in the MLC cannot conclusively determine the exact time of the accident if the accident may have occurred earlier and the injured was taken to the hospital thereafter.
The Court also rejected the contention that the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence to operate the vehicle. The Court noted that no evidence had been placed on record by the insurance company to establish such a violation.
In addition, the Court referred to the settled legal position that a person holding a licence for a light motor vehicle is permitted to operate transport vehicles of the same class with a gross vehicle weight below the statutory limit.
Upon examining the entire record, the Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence or the quantum of compensation.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court concluded that the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding negligence of the truck driver and the compensation payable to the claimants did not suffer from any infirmity.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and directed that the awarded compensation be deposited before the Tribunal for release to the claimants in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions.
Cause Title: United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lakshmi Kumari & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1946)
Appearances
Appellant: Hari Prakash Sharma and Vibhash Jha, Advocates
Respondents: Pankaj Gupta, Advocate