Delhi District Court
Anju Kumari vs Owner. Driver And Insurance Company on 23 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF VIJAY KUMAR JHA
PRESIDING OFFICER:
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-01, SHAHDARA
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
____________________________________________________________
In the matter of :
Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no. BR30P-5567 & Ors.
MACT no. 619/2017
1) Anju Kumari (wife of the deceased)
W/o late Sh. Raja Kumar
D/o Sh. Chandeshwar Prasad
R/o B-2/240, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.
2) Rohit Kumar (brother of deceased)
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sah
3) Soni Kumari (sister of deceased)
D/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sah
Petitioner no.2 & 3 R/o Village Janki Asthan,
Ring Road, Ward no.1, Yadav Nagar, PO Janki Asthan,
PS & District Sitamarhi, Bihar-843302. ..............Petitioners
Versus
1) Owner of Bus no. BR30P-5567
Sh. Ram Jeevan Lath
S/o late Sh. Dwarika Prasad Lath
2) Driver of Bus no. BR30P-5567
M/s Lath Transport
Both 1 & 2 R/o P.O. & PS Sursand, Sitamarhhi, Bihar-843331.
3) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Oriental House, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002.
4) IO/ SHO, PS Sursand
CO- Pupri, Sitamarhhi, Bihar-843331.
______________________________________________________________________
MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 1 of 20 Pages
5) Raj Kumar Sah @ Raj Kumar (father of deceased)
S/o Sh. Hari Shankar Sah
6). Smt. Urmila Devi @ Nirmala (mother of deceased)
W/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sah
Respondent no. 5 & 6 R/o Village Janki Asthan,
Ring Road, Ward no.1, Yadav Nagar, PO Janki Asthan,
PS & District Sitamarhi, Bihar-843302. .......................Respondents
Date of institution : 27.10.2017
Final arguments concluded on : 17.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present claim petition under Section 166 of the 'Motor Vehicles Act, 1988' was filed by the claimants/ legal representatives of Sh. Raja Kumar (hereinafter, 'the deceased') seeking compensation from the respondents on account fatal injury received by the deceased in a motor vehicular accident.
2. As per the claim petition, on 26.07.2017 at 03:30 p.m., the deceased Raja Kumar, along with his friends, namely Rohan Mishra and Eklavya, was travelling by motorcycle (make Yamaha Fezor) bearing no. BR30K-7259 being driven by the deceased and when they reached at Pakki Sadak, Village Banauli, NH-104, PS Sursand, District Sitamarhi, Bihar, a bus bearing no. BR30P-5567 (hereinafter, "offending vehicle"), being driven by its driver at a high speed, rashly and negligently, came and hit their motorcycle from behind. As a result, the deceased and his friends received injuries and they were taken to Dispensary at Sursand from where they were referred ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 2 of 20 Pages to Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi and the deceased, being critical was further referred to SKMCH, Mujjafarpur, where he died during treatment. It is submitted that cremation of the deceased was done without getting the postmortem done due to the mental condition of the father of the deceased.
3. In connection with the accident, a criminal case was registered on the same day of the accident on the statement of injured Rohan Mishra vide FIR no 196/2017, under sections 279/337/338 IPC, PS Sursand. During investigation, it was found out that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by one Shatrughan Mandal, owned by Ram Jeevan Lath and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet for offences under sections 279/337/338/304-A IPC against Shatrughan Mandal was filed before the concerned court at Sitamarhi. However, in the present claim petition, proper memo of parties has not been filed as instead of mentioning the name of the driver of the offending vehicle as Shatrughan Mandal, "driver of Bus no.BR30P-5567, M/s Lath Transport" has been mentioned. By filing the present claim petition, the petitioners have prayed for compensation of Rs.50 lakhs.
4. It is observed that initially, the claim petition was filed by the petitioner no.1 Anju Kumari impleading the respondent no.1 to 4. Subsequently, brother and sister of the deceased as petitioner no.2 and 3 as well as parents of the deceased as respondent no.5 and 6 were impleaded and accordingly, amended memo of parties was ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 3 of 20 Pages taken on record.
5. On notice of claim, except respondent no.2 (driver of offending vehicle) and respondent no.4 (IO/ SHO, PS Sursand), all the respondents appeared and filed their written-statements.
6. Respondent no.1 Ram Jeevan Lath, owner of the offending vehicle in his written-statement stated that it is quite false to say that the vehicle in question was driven by driver in very high speed as well as rashly and negligently and also without care and caution. It is stated that the offending vehicle was duly insured on the alleged date of the accident and driver of it was holding a valid driving licence. Along with the written-statement, the respondent no.1 enclosed photocopies of the relevant documents of the offending vehicle, i.e., Certificate of Registration, Driving Licence of the driver, Cover Note of insurance, Permit, Fitness and Pollution Certificate.
7. The respondent no.3/ insurance company in its written-statement inter-alia stated that the alleged accident, if any, was occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased himself, who was driving the motorcycle no. BR30K-7259 with triple load and without driving licence, which is a violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and therefore, petitioners are not entitled to the compensation from the answering respondent.
8. Respondent no.5 and 6, the parents of the deceased, filed a joint written-statement, praying for 80% award amount in their favour as well as in favour of minor brother and sister of the deceased, i.e., ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 4 of 20 Pages petitioner no.2 and 3 and submitted as under:
(a) That after the death of the deceased, the petitioner no.1 (wife of the deceased) started quarrelling with the respondent no.5 and 6 and threatened to implicate them in a false dowry harassment case, if respondent no.5 & 6 did not pay her a hefty sum before she leaves the matrimonial house.
(b) That the respondent no.5 & 6 paid Rs.6,10,000/- to the petitioner no.1, out of which Rs.4,10,000/- was paid to her under Life Insurance Policy of the deceased (copy of bank statement reflecting transfer of amount in the account of petitioner no.1 is annexed) and Rs.2,00,000/- in cash was paid to her by respondent no.5 vide settlement dated 15.12.2017 (copy of said settlement is annexed).
(c) That respondent no.5 and 6 were in shock by death of their only young son (deceased) and they could not file separate claim petition for compensation for the death of deceased.
(d) That petitioner no.1 filed a false domestic violence complaint before Ld. MM (Mahila Court), Shahdara and by misleading the court obtained the ex-parte order/ judgment dated 17.08.2020, whereby petitioner no.2 and respondents no.5 & 6 were jointly directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner no.1 besides compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
(e) The vide order dated 24.05.2024, Ld. MM recalled the order ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 5 of 20 Pages dated 17.08.2020 while noting that the petitioner no.1 had concealed the factum of her remarriage, birth of the child from the second marriage, factum of settlement dated 15.12.2017 and had also not effected service upon the respondents (copy of said order/ judgment is annexed with the written-statement).
(f) That in the present claim petition also, the petitioner no.1 has concealed about the petitioner no.2 and 3 as well as respondent no.5 and 6 being legal representatives of the deceased.
9. Upon pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 22.10.2024, following issues were framed:
1) Whether Raja Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 26.07.2017 at 03:30 p.m., at main Pakki Sadak, NH-104, near Banoli Petrol Pump, within the jurisdiction of PS Sursand, District Sitamarhi, Bihar, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e bus bearing no.
BR30P-5567 driven by respondent no.2 Shatrughan Mandal (driver)? OPP
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3) Whether deceased was negligent and contributed in the accident in which the deceased expired, if so, to what effect?
OPR
4) Relief.
10. Vide order dated 26.10.2024, the order dated 22.10.2024 was modified to the extent that respondent no.5 & 6 have filed their written-statement on 20.08.2024 when the Tribunal was on leave and issue no.2 was modified as follows: "Whether the petitioner/ ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 6 of 20 Pages claimant including the respondent no.5 & 6 are entitled to compensation on account of said accident, if yes, to what extent? OPP"
11. Vide order dated 11.05.2023, learned Court Commissioner was appointed (refer: Gohar Mohammed v. U.P. SRTC, (2023) 4 SCC
381) to record the evidence in this case. Ld. Court Commissioner submitted the report containing the depositions recorded by him, as follows:
(a) PW1 Anju Kumari, the petitioner no.1, wife of the deceased testified on the strength of her affidavits Ex.PW1/1 regarding the manner of accident and losses suffered as a result of fatal injuries received by the deceased in the accident and relied upon the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/10, as under:
(i) Copy of FIR dated 26.07.2017 as Ex.PW1/A Mark-1.
(ii) Copy of complaint dated 26.07.2017 as Ex.PW1/B Mark-2.
(iii) Copy of death certificate as Ex.PW1/C Mark-3.
(iv) Copy of discharge ticket from Sadar Hospital, Sitamarhi as Ex.PW1/D Mark-4.
(v) Copy of refer letter as Ex.PW1/F Mark-5.
(vi) Photo of incident as Ex.PW1/F Mark-6.
(vii) Copy of Aadhaar Card as Ex.PW1/G Mark-7.
(viii) Copy of newspaper cutting dated 27.07.2017 as Ex.PW1/H Mark-8.
(b) R5W1 Raj Kumar Sah @ Raj Kumar, father of the deceased deposed by way of his affidavit Ex.R5W1/A and relied upon the following documents:
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 7 of 20 Pages
(i) Original SPA, dated 24.12.2024 as Ex.RW1/1.
(ii) Aadhaar Cards of petitioner no.2 and 3 and respondent no.5 and 6 as Ex.RW1/2.
(iii) The documents mentioned as Ex.RW1/3 to Ex.RW1/16 in the affidavit are stated to have already been filed on record.
(c) R6W1 Smt. Urmila Devi @ Nirmala, mother of the deceased deposed by way of her affidavit Ex.R6W1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) The copy of Aadhaar Card of the deceased Raja Kumar as Ex.R6W1/1 (OSR).
(ii) The copy of school leaving certificate of the deceased as Mark-X.
12. Despite sufficient opportunities granted, other respondents including insurance company did not lead any evidence and therefore, evidence of all the respondents was closed on 01.08.2025.
13. I heard the final arguments advanced by learned counsels for the parties and also perused the evidence and other materials placed on record. My findings on the issues are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1 Whether Raja Kumar died in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 26.07.2017 at 03:30 p.m., at main Pakki Sadak, NH-104, near Banoli Petrol Pump, within the jurisdiction of PS Sursand, District Sitamarhi, Bihar, due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle I.e bus bearing no. BR30P-5567 driven by respondent no.2 Shatrughan Mandal (driver)? OPP
14. It is settled proposition of law that, in an action founded on the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 8 of 20 Pages principle of fault liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is sine-qua-non. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. A holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal. However, that does not mean that a Tribunal which has been approached with a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act should ignore all basic principles of law in determining the claim for compensation. The relevant provisions of the Act are not intended to jettison all principles of law relating to a claim for compensation, which is still based on a tortious liability. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others., MAC APP. No. 550/2011 decided on 02.07.2012; Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others (2009) 13 SC 530; Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others 2011 (1) SCR 1096; Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others 2018, Law Suit (SC) 303; & Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors., (2007) 5 SCC 428.
15. Now coming to the present case, the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners are that as in the FIR that was registered regarding the accident, after the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed which is sufficient proof of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving it rashly and negligently and that it was the offending vehicle that caused the accident in question. In the ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 9 of 20 Pages criminal case, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/ insurance company submitted that the accused (driver) was acquitted and the further arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners is that the above said presumption, i.e., the filing of the charge-sheet being proof of involvement of the vehicle and the fact that the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently is not dislodged. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon certain judgments in support of his arguments.
16. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.3/ insurance company is that as the claim petition has been filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the petitioners were required to prove on the balance of probability the rashness and negligence in driving the offending vehicle by driver/ respondent no.2 which led to the accident and resultant death of the deceased. That on behalf of the petitioners, no witness has been examine who could have proved the rashness and negligence of the driver/ respondent no.2 and therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
17. Conclusive proof has been defined in the Evidence Act/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam as follows:
"Conclusive proof" means when one fact is declared by this Adhiniyam to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it."
18. Neither in the Motor Vehicles Act nor in any of the judgments of the Hon'ble Superior Courts, it has been stated that the filing of charge- ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 10 of 20 Pages sheet would be 'conclusive proof' of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle with which the accident was caused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently, in other words, if the charge-sheet has been filed, the petitioner is absolved from proving the rashness and/ or negligence in driving of the offending vehicle causing the accident. Also, it has not been provided under the Evidence Act/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam that the Tribunal may presume the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving that vehicle rashly and negligently which led to the accident on filing of the charge-sheet as proved on filing of the charge-sheet unless and until evidence is led by the opposite party to disprove the said presumption.
19. For argument's sake even if it is assumed that on filing of the charge-
sheet the Tribunal could have presumed the fact of rashness and negligence of the driver in driving the offending vehicle and causing the accident even then as per the Evidence Act/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam the Tribunal in its discretion could have called proof of the fact of rashness and negligence aliunde the fact of filing of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer against the driver of the offending vehicle. Also, neither in the Motor Vehicles Act nor in any applicable Rules, it has been provided that by the fact of filing of the charge-sheet, the Tribunal shall presume the fact of rashness and negligence in driving the offending vehicle by the driver and the presumptions shall be valid unless and until it is disproved by the respondents.
20. As per the Indian Evidence Act/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam a fact ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 11 of 20 Pages (rashness and/ or negligence is not a fact but is an opinion that could be formed on the basis of facts) is said to be proved when after considering the matters before the Tribunal, the Tribunal either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists.
21. The opinion with respect to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was driving rashly and negligently has to be drawn by the Tribunal on the basis of considering the matters before it. The Tribunal may have before it the copy of charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer against the driver before the concerned criminal Court. The Tribunal may after going through the contents of the charge-sheet come to a conclusion that on the balance of probability indeed it was the driver of the offending vehicle/ accused who was responsible for causing the accident leading to death/ injury or the loss of property of the third-party and decide the issue of rashness and negligence in driving the motor vehicle by the driver in favour of the petitioners if a prudent man under the circumstances of the particular case which is before the Tribunal would also act upon the said supposition. At the same time, the Tribunal would be within its discretion/ jurisdiction to decide the issue of rashness and negligence on the basis of charge-sheet against the petitioners. The Tribunal is aware that the strict technical rules of Evidence Act/ Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam are not applicable in the enquiry proceedings, which are to be conducted under Chapter 12 of Motor Vehicles Act, but the definitions of conclusive proof, may presume, shall presume, ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 12 of 20 Pages proved, disproved etc. are so basic and germane in the enquiry proceedings, which are to be conducted by the Tribunal that these definitions could hardly be said to be the technical rules, rather these definitions are the fulcrum on which the enquiry proceedings are to be conducted by the Tribunal after all before the award could be passed the petitioners have to prove its case on the balance of probability.
22. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pushpa Rana 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, it has been held that the filing of charge-sheet is sufficient proof of the negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle. However, in the judgment of the Single Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsh Mishra; 2016 ACJ 2669, it has been held that mere registration of criminal case/ filing of the charge-sheet is not enough to prove negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and that every fact must be proved either by direct or indirect evidence. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Harsh Mishra (supra) has further held in paragraph 23 that:
23. In view of the above, the law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pushpa Rana, 2009 ACJ 287 shall be confined to the facts of the said case and not be considered as a binding precedent.
23. On the same issue whether filing of charge-sheet is the proof of negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, in paragraph 27 has observed:
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 13 of 20 Pages "27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable.
Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent
2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge-sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal."
24. In view of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram (supra), if the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle that 'prima facie' points towards his complicity in driving the offending vehicle negligently and rashly. It may be noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has not used the definitions of 'conclusive proof', 'may presume' or 'shall presume' as per Evidence Act, rather has said 'prima facie' which is a Latin phrase that means at first view, on the first appearance.
25. 'Prima facie' also means on the face of it and what may appear on ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 14 of 20 Pages the face of anything may not be the same if it is analyzed in the light of the evidence or been examined in depth. On the analysis and examining the contents of the charge-sheet in the light of the evidence that is led in the claim petition, the Tribunal may either come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle in causing the accident or may also come to a contrary opinion. Even, in a case where the driver of the offending vehicle is acquitted by the Criminal Court, the Tribunal on the basis of such fact cannot dismiss the claim petition holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle but in the light of the evidence that may be led, the Tribunal has to come to its own conclusion regarding the rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
26. The Criminal Court can return the finding of guilty only when the prosecution is able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In the charges with reference to any offence under Indian Penal Code/ Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, requiring rash and/ or negligence as one of the ingredients of the offence with respect to use of motor vehicle, if the Criminal Court has held guilty, then the verdict of guilty could be taken at the discretion of the Tribunal as sufficient proof before the Claims Tribunal in an enquiry regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. But in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram (Supra), in case, the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle before the Criminal Court, that would only prima-
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 15 of 20 Pages facie indicate towards his complicity in driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and nothing more and nothing less. To come to a finding on the touchstone of preponderance of probability/ balance of proof regarding the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver, the same has to be culled out/ discerned from the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Claims Tribunal and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police.
27. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company limited v. Raj Rani Sahoo; SLP(C) 29320 of 2019, dated 02.01.2025 which has been relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners, as per para no.8 of the judgment, the driver of the offending truck was tried and found guilty of rash and negligent driving. However, in the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted by Ld. Criminal Court. As the judgment of the concerned Criminal Court has not been filed, this Tribunal is unable to come to any definite conclusion as to what weighed with the Ld. Criminal Court in acquitting the accused/ respondent no.2. In judgment of Raj Rani (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the judgment titled as Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 13 SCC 510:
"12... A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 16 of 20 Pages compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi."
28. In the present case, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner no.1 Anju Kumari has been examined as PW1. In her cross-examination she deposed, "I cannot say what the contents are mentioned in my evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1. It is correct that Ex.PW1/1 prepared by my counsel and I put my signature as deponent ". The cross-examination of PW1 as quoted indicates that the contents of the affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/1 was decided by her Advocate about which PW1 was not even aware of. In other words, it appears that on behalf of the petitioners, it is the proxy litigation of somebody else may be that the advocates of the petitioners as the affidavit of evidence does not appear to be drafted at the instance or the directions of the witnesses. Not only the petitioner no.1 was unaware of the contents of the affidavit but even R6W1 Urmila Devi who deposed, "...it is correct that I do not know as to the contents of my affidavit. I was also not explain as to the contents of my affidavit by my counsel before I put my signatures on it ". Out of the three witnesses examined in the present case, two of the witnesses were not even aware as to the contents of their affidavit and it speaks loudly against the manner in which the litigation has been conducted by the counsel for the petitioners/ respondents except the insurance company. Even the charge-sheet has not been proved/ exhibited by any of the witnesses of the petitioners at the time of tendering of the affidavit of evidence.
______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 17 of 20 Pages
29. In her cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for the insurance company, PW1 deposed, "It is correct that my deceased husband was addict of alcohol and regularly and daily consume morning and night." The father of the deceased/ RW5 Raj Kumar Sah in his cross-examination deposed, " At the time of accident there was a possibility that my deceased son was under the influence of liquor/ intoxication. My deceased son was taken liquor of some of some instance...It is correct that we were not done the post-mortem of my deceased son because he was drunk at the time of accident ,"
(quoted as it is with grammatical mistakes). The deposition of PW1 as well as RW5 'prima facie' indicates that it might be possible that at the time of the accident the deceased was driving the motor-cycle under the influence of alcohol leading to the presumption that possibly the accident might have been caused by the rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. It may also be noted that there were two pillion riders other than the deceased who was driving the motor-cycle under the influence of alcohol and that to without having a valid driving license.
30. If a holistic view of the evidence as lead by the petitioners/ respondents are taken into consideration by the Tribunal, the rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle/ respondent no.2 has not been proved by the petitioners. Though Ld. counsel for the petitioners in support of the case of the petitioners has relied upon the case laws : Meera Bai & Ors. v. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr., SLP (C) no.3886/2019, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 30.04.2025; Ranjeet & Anr. v. Abdul Kayam Neb ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 18 of 20 Pages & Anr., SLP (C) no. 10351/2019, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 25.02.2025 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana & Ors., MAC APP. 360/2007, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.12.2007, however, on perusal of the aforesaid case laws, it is observed that facts mentioned in the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Rather, it appears that on the balance of probability, it was the deceased himself who was rash and negligent in driving the motor-cycle under the influence of alcohol and because of that the family members of the deceased did not get the postmortem of the deceased done.
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Sithara N.S. & Ors. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd., CIVIL APPEAL Nos.14718-14719 of 2025, dated 12.12.2025, in paragraph 19 of the judgment has observed, "...liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence." In the said case, the charge-sheet was filed in spite of that the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the claim petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Had filing of the charge-sheet sufficient to prove the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident, the issue no.1 would not have been drafted as it has been drafted but rather the issue no.1 would have been, 'whether the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer in the FIR registered against the driver of the offending vehicle has been filed'. And if the answer of the issue no.1 would have been affirmative, the Tribunal would have been under no obligation to conduct any further inquiry ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 19 of 20 Pages and would have allowed each and every claim petition in which the charge sheet would have been filed.
32. In view of the discussion hereinabove, it is held that petitioners have not been able to establish on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities that the deceased had sustained fatal injuries in the present motor vehicular accident because of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by the driver/ respondent no.2. Issue no.1 is, accordingly, decided against the petitioners.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of said accident and if yes, to what extent and from whom? (OPP)
33. As the issue no.1 has been decided against the petitioners, it is held that the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. Accordingly, issue no.2 is decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents.
34. The claim petition is, accordingly, dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room. VIJAY Digitally signed by VIJAY KUMAR JHA KUMAR Date: 2025.12.23 JHA 16:12:24 +0530 Announced in the open (VIJAY KUMAR JHA) Court on 23.12.2025 Presiding Officer-MACT-01 (Shahdara) Karkardooma, Delhi ______________________________________________________________________ MACT no. 619/2017; Anju Kumari & Ors. v. Owner of Bus no.BR30P-5567 & Ors. 20 of 20 Pages