The Supreme Court has granted compensation to the families of 3 deceased teachers who died due to the rash and negligent driving of a tanker. The Apex Court also held that the photographs taken nearly ten to twelve hours after the occurrence of the accident cannot be treated as an accurate representation of the position of the vehicles at the time of impact/accident.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court affirming the Awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim petitions filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held, “Admittedly, the photographs were not taken immediately after the accident. They were taken at about 8:00 a.m. on the following day, nearly ten to twelve hours after its occurrence. Such photographs cannot be treated as an accurate representation of the position of the vehicles at the time of impact / accident.”

“It is also an admitted position that upon investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against the tanker driver Vinod Kumar for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Though a charge-sheet by itself is not a conclusive proof of negligence, it remains a relevant circumstance and lends support to the version advanced by the claimants”, it added.

Senior Advocate Sanjay R Hegde represented the Appellant while Advocate Laxmi Chauhan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The accident occurred in the year 2002 when a Maruti Car proceeding from Allahabad towards Orai on the Allahabad-Kanpur Road was being driven by Mata Prasad and was occupied by Ajeet Singh, Roop Singh and Dr. Dileep Kumar Katiyar (PW-2). The said vehicle met with an accident due to a collision with a tanker being driven by Vinod Kumar. The impact of the collision was very severe. Mata Prasad, Ajeet Singh and Roop Singh succumbed to the injuries, whereas Dr. Dileep Kumar Katiyar survived but suffered grievous injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased persons instituted separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the untimely deaths of the deceased who were the sole breadwinners of their respective families.

The case of the claimants was that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker, and the driver of the Maruti Car was not negligent. The Tribunal accepted the defence version and dismissed the claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that all three deceased were teachers by profession. The monthly income of Mata Prasad, Ajeet Singh and Roop Singh was Rs 10,071, Rs 10,345 and Rs 9,708, respectively. The Bench noted certain foundational facts which were recorded by the Tribunal and attained finality. These included the fact that the deaths of the three occupants were caused as a result of the accident in question, the drivers of both vehicles possessed valid and effective driving licences, the tanker was duly insured on the date of the accident, and the claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased persons and dependent upon them for the purpose of income.

The Bench reiterated that the standard of proof in proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is one of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal trials. “The Tribunal is not a criminal Court and must not import the stringency of the criminal standard while evaluating civil liability arising out of motor accidents. The evidence-on-record must, therefore, be appreciated in a pragmatic manner keeping in view the object and purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988”, it added.

The Bench noted that the accident occurred at about 10:00 p.m. during the month of January. There was neither any pleading nor any evidence to show that the tanker had switched on the parking lights, hazard indicators, reflective signs or any warning mechanism to alert approaching vehicles. “Parking a heavy vehicle on a public road at night, without an adequate warning signal, as is in the present case, constitutes negligence in itself. Such conduct creates a foreseeable risk to other road users”, it stated.

“The principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) also becomes applicable in the facts of the present case. Once it is shown that a heavy vehicle was left standing on the roadway at night without adequate warning signs and a collision occurred, the burden shifts upon the respondents to establish that all reasonable precautions had been taken. The respondents have failed to discharge that burden”, it added.

On an assessment of the entire evidence and applying the test of preponderance of probabilities the Bench noted that the testimony of PW-2 was reliable and trustworthy, the exhibits did not constitute dependable evidence for determining negligence and the defence version remained unsubstantiated due to non-production of the conductor. The Bench further noted that the tanker was not shown to have been parked in a safe manner and the charge-sheet filed against the tanker driver corroborated the claimants' case.

Finding that the accident was held to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker, the Bench held the claimants entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court and the Awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Bench enhanced the compensation in all three cases.

Cause Title: Manju Singh v. Avinash Singh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 696)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Sanjay R Hegde, AOR Prithvi Pal, Advocates Amar Pal, Sushil Kumar Pandey, Dishant Singh, Ankit Tiwari, Neeraj, Bhupinder Yadav

Respondent: Advocates Laxmi Chauhan, Lalit Chauhan, Manish Yadav, Khushi Sehrawat, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: