In CM-6304-CII-2023-PUNJ HC- Necessary to prove negligence in order to claim compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, clarifies P&H HC
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi [17-04-2023]

Read Order: MANJU AND OTHERS VS BHIM AND OTHERS

Mansimran Kaur

Chandigarh, April 20,2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the claimants  were awarded compensation of Rs 50,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but their the claim u/s 166 was declined.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi dismissed the present appeal by observing that the the appellants were not able to apprise this Court about the outcome of the FIR, which was registered against the driver of the auto-rickshaw.

Under these circumstances, when no evidence has come to prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle in any manner, an award passed by the tribunal cannot be treated as perverse to any evidence or fact on record, the Bench added.

It was submitted from the side of the appellants that in the present case, keeping in view the registration of an FIR on the basis of the statement of the nephew of the deceased, the accident was  proved. 

It was further submitted  that once the accident is proved, the natural corollary is that negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has led to the accident hence, the registration of an FIR and the death of the deceased in the said accident is good enough to grant the compensation to the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereas, the tribunal  wrongly held that there was no evidence on record to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in any manner so as to grant the compensation to the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988.

After considering the submissions of the parties, the Court noted that no other evidence except registration of an FIR was brought on record to support the allegations that the driver of the auto-rickshaw was negligent in any manner in the present case. 

“ Proving negligence is a must ingredient so as to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988”, the Court remarked. 

 In the absence of any evidence supporting the averments even made in the FIR, it cannot be said that findings recorded by the tribunal were without appreciating the evidence on record. Mere registration of an FIR, author of which was not examined by the claimants will not give a right to the appellants to claim that averments made in the FIR are to be treated as gospel truth so as to award compensation by treating the driver of alleged offending vehicle as negligent, the Court noted. 

The Bench opined that when no evidence had come to prove the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle in any manner, an award passed by the tribunal couldnot be treated as perverse to any evidence or fact on record.

 Keeping in view the above, no ground for interference by this Court was made out and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.