Negligence Need Not Be Proved In Claim U/S.163A MV Act; Discrepancies Which Don’t Go To Root Of Occurrence Can’t Defeat Motor Accident Compensation Claim: Supreme Court

The Apex Court further held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the occurrence cannot defeat a claim.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court affirming the dismissal of a claim petition filed by the original claimant, the injured, under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries resulting in permanent disability allegedly sustained in an accident which occurred in 2004.

The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated, “At the outset, we would like to reiterate that the nature of proceedings under the Act are summary in nature, with an aim to provide expeditious justice. It is a settled position of law that a claim petition is to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further in a claim under Section 163A, the enquiry is narrower still, for negligence is not required to be proved, and it is sufficient that the injury is reasonably connected with the motor vehicle in question.”

“It follows that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the occurrence cannot defeat a claim. The Court must differentiate between contradictions that render the accident improbable and those that merely reflect imperfections in documentation. It is in this framework that the evidence needs to be appreciated”, it added.

Advocate Rajesh Srivastava represented the Appellant, while Advocate Meenakshi Midha represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The original claimant, after getting down from a rickshaw near a bus stop, was allegedly knocked down by a lorry. He lost consciousness and sustained injuries and thereafter underwent medical treatment. He was ultimately diagnosed with traumatic paraplegia, leading to permanent disablement. He instituted a claim case seeking compensation to the tune of Rs 3,50,000 under Section 163A before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that he had failed to prove that the injuries sustained were a result of the alleged accident. Aggrieved, the original claimant filed an appeal before the High Court, but the same was dismissed on the ground that the discrepancies in the record were glaring, and the fact of the accident did not stand proved. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original claimant expired and was represented by his legal representatives.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the original claimant had consistently deposed that it was after he got down from the rickshaw and while he was paying the fare, the lorry, which was being driven in a negligent manner, struck him, causing loss of consciousness. The FIR and the chargesheet recorded the same, and even in the cross-examination, he specifically denied having fallen from the lorry. “The FIR, chargesheet and the original claimant’s own testimony indicate that he was hit by the lorry after he had got down from the rickshaw. The isolated wording in the history column cannot displace the cumulative evidentiary record”, it mentioned.

The Bench was also of the view that the delay in approaching the police cannot by itself lead to an inference that the accident did not occur, more so when the investigation culminated in a chargesheet attributing negligent driving to the lorry. “So long as the records consistently indicate hospitalisation and treatment for traumatic paraplegia, minor inconsistencies in dates or individual receipts do not render the claim unreliable nor detract from the established disability. The High Court was not justified in treating these discrepancies as casting doubt on the occurrence of the accident; at most, they relate to the course of treatment”, it clarified.

Considering that the appellant suffered permanent paralysis and was rendered incapable of pursuing his occupation, resulting in a complete loss of his earning capacity, the Bench stated, “In such circumstances, denying his claim for compensation despite the accident being established on a balance of probabilities would undermine the very protective purpose which the statute provides for.”

“In the facts of the present case, negligence of the offending vehicle also stands borne out from the investigation on record as also the statement made by the claimant himself. The claimant was a 37-year-old brick-field labourer and the sole earning member of his family. He suffered 100% permanent disability, rendering him incapacitated for the rest of his life. He finally passed away during the pendency of the proceedings, leaving behind his wife and children. The Court cannot ignore that the claimant may not have invoked the provision best suited to the nature of the claim. However, such lack of legal awareness cannot by itself operate to deny them just compensation once the foundational facts stand established”, it stated.

Thus, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench determined the compensation as Rs 14,90,000 by drawing guidance from the principles evolved by the Court in claims arising under Section 166. Asking the respondent-Insurer to pay the compensation with interest, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Raj Kumar Das (D) Thr. Lrs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 541)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocate Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Chand Qureshi, Advocates Asit Kumar Rari, Anup Kumar Bag, Keshav Dev, Mohit Yadav, Mohd. Shahzad Ansari, Md.imran Siddiqui

Respondent: Advocates Meenakshi Midha, Garv Singh, AOR Chander Shekhar Ashri

Click here to read/download Judgment