Motor Vehicles Act Provisions Won’t Apply Simply Because Car Was involved In Chain Of Circumstances That Led To Death: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court clarified that some link between the car and the death has to be established.
The Supreme Court, while dealing with an alleged accidental murder matter, has held that simply because there was a car somehow involved in a chain of circumstances that led to the death of a person, it cannot be said that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act would apply.
The Apex Court clarified that some link between the car, and the death has to be established.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “All that had been said was that the injuries sustained by Anand were by hard and blunt objects.Now true it is that the claimants need not establish the particular manner in which injuries have been sustained by the injured or the deceased but that does not mean that simply because there was a car somehow involved in a chain of circumstances that led to his death, the provisions of MVA would apply. Some link whatsoever between the car, and the death has to be established.”
Senior Advocate Rajesh Pandey represented the Appellant while AOR Rakesh Kumar Singh represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
One Anand was found dead near Binjkot village, PS Chalradhar Nagar three days after he sat in a vehicle driven by his friend, the appellant Dilip. Anand’s wife lodged an FIR and the chargesheet alleged that a total of three accused persons in furtherance of a conspiracy, kidnapped Anand, killed him in a premeditated fashion and disposed of his mortal remains. Somewhat parallelly, Rajshri and her three children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal , Raigarh, seeking compensation of approximately Rs 26,00,000 alleging that Anand, was killed inside Dilip’s vehicle and hence the vehicle was used in the commission of the offence.
Dilip was convicted under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . His appeal to the High Court succeeded and he was acquitted of all charges primarily on account of the fact that the last seen theory, on which the case of the prosecution rested, could not be proved. A total amount of Rs 5,64,000 with interest was awarded. The High Court agreed with the findings of the Tribunal and enhanced total compensation to Rs 8,60,832 with interest.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, clarified, “Accidents which may be of the above varieties must arise out of use of motor vehicle. Liability under this Act cannot be fastened only because of accident and motor vehicle. ‘Arising out of’ is the causal link. Without this, liability falls.”
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that Anand knew Dilip and as such sat in his car and went away. Subsequently, he turned up dead three days later. It was noted that in the criminal case the last seen theory was not proved. “Granted the standard of proof in a criminal case is higher, either beyond reasonable doubt or ruling out of any other possibility and the chain of circumstances being so complete to point the guilt only to the accused and no one else; whereas in a civil case preponderance of probability is the standard and so the evidence has to be looked at differently. This principle has been stated aptly in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo reiterating Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi”, it stated.
As per the Bench, no causal link was established, and the evidence on record did not point to any forensic proof having been recovered from the car, such as blood, skin cells, hair, etc. It was further noticed that it was nobody’s case that Dilip’s car was involved in any collision.
Considering that there was an alleged accidental murder and there was a motor vehicle, but the relationship between the two specifically involving a motor vehicle had not been established, the Bench held that there could not be any liability under the MVA. Allowing the appeals, the Bench directed that the amount of compensation, if already paid to the respondents, would not be subject to any recovery.
Cause Title: Dilip Agarwal v. Rajshri Agarwal (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 736)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocates Ayushi Pandey, Niranjan Marde, Shruti Pandey, AOR Aswathi M.K.
Respondent: AOR Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocates Rajnish Kumar Singh, Bhupendra Singh, Binod Kumar Singh, Ashok Anand, K.V. Alok Shankeran