The Supreme Court has held that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver is found negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the vehicle was being driven negligently, in a motor accident claim case.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti emphasized that the absence of eyewitness testimony does not invalidate a claim of negligence, particularly in cases of fatal accidents, reinforcing the legal principle that a charge sheet itself can serve as sufficient proof of liability.

"It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye- witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver," the Bench observed.

The Court overturned the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), awarding Rs. 10.02 lakh in compensation to the family of a deceased agricultural labourer, Ramkaran, who died in a road accident in 2006.

The Bench ruled that the Tribunal and the High Court erred in law by denying compensation solely due to the absence of eyewitness testimony, despite the fact that a charge sheet had been filed against the bus driver. "We are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court both manifestly erred in law in refusing to grant any compensation to the claimants," the Bench said.

AOR Anuj Bhandari appeared for the Petitioner, while AOR Shyamal Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

Case Background

On June 13, 2006, Ramkaran was allegedly struck by a bus, leading to his death. An FIR was registered, and a charge sheet was filed against the bus driver. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal denied compensation, citing the lack of eyewitness testimony- a decision later upheld by the Rajasthan High Court.

The Court, while hearing the appeal, clarified that once a charge sheet is filed and the driver is held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove negligence. It held that the absence of eyewitnesses was not fatal to the claim.

Compensation Calculation

Given the passage of nearly 19 years since the accident, the Court opted to determine the compensation itself instead of remanding the matter to the Tribunal.

The Court fixed the deceased’s nominal income at Rs. 6,000 per month (Rs. 72,000 per annum). After deducting one-third towards personal expenses, the dependency was assessed at Rs. 48,000 per annum. Applying a multiplier of 15 (for a 38-year-old deceased), the total loss of income was calculated as Rs. 7,05,000.

Adding 40% towards future prospects (Rs. 2,82,000) and Rs. 15,000 for funeral expenses, the total compensation was set at Rs. 10,02,000, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition.

The Supreme Court set aside the 2018 order of the Rajasthan High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, allowing the appeal and directing payment of the awarded compensation.


Cause Title: Ranjeet & Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10351/2019]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Anuj Bhandari (AOR), Disha Bhandari

Respondent: Advocates Shyamal Kumar (AOR), B S Rajesh Agrajit, Siddharth Gosawami, Shivam Singh Tomar

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Pankaj MithalJustice SVN BhattiMotor Accident Claims Tribunal

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.