Motor accident claim — Claim by tortfeasor — Driver at fault — Claimant cannot take benefit of his own wrong Where evidence shows that claimant himself drove the vehicle rashly and negligently causing the accident, he cannot claim compensation from insurer of opposite vehicle. Provisions of MV Act cannot be invoked to reward a tortfeasor for his own negligence. (Para 10)

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 166, 167, 173 — Claim for injuries — Burden of proving negligence — FIR and charge-sheet filed against claimant himself — Effect

Claimant, driver of one lorry, sought compensation alleging rash and negligent driving by opposite lorry. FIR, charge sheet, CD file and MVI report filed by the claimant himself (Exs.A1–A6) disclosed that he was shown as the accused in the criminal case and not the opposite driver. Held, documentary evidence contradicted claimant’s oral testimony. Tribunal rightly rejected oral evidence which was self-serving and unsupported by independent material. Burden to prove negligence lies on claimant; mere non-examination of opposite driver does not make claimant’s version gospel truth. (Paras 10–12)

B. Motor accident claim — Claim by tortfeasor — Driver at fault — Claimant cannot take benefit of his own wrong

Where evidence shows that claimant himself drove the vehicle rashly and negligently causing the accident, he cannot claim compensation from insurer of opposite vehicle. Provisions of MV Act cannot be invoked to reward a tortfeasor for his own negligence. (Para 10)

C. Sections 166 & 167 MV Act — Maintainability — Claim by owner/driver of his own vehicle — Not a “third party” — Remedy lies under Workmen’s Compensation Act (now Employees’ Compensation Act), not under S.166

Tribunal held, and High Court affirmed, that since claimant did not implead insurer/owner of his own vehicle and was himself the negligent driver, he could not claim under S.166 as a third party. Under S.167, a workman/driver has to elect between MV Act and Workmen’s Compensation Act; but cannot claim compensation under MV Act when he is the tortfeasor. (Para 10)

D. Insurance — “Pay and recover” principle — Manuara Khatun case — Inapplicability

Reliance placed on Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, 2017 ACJ 1031, rejected. Held, that judgment relates to gratuitous passengers and insurer’s statutory liability to pay and recover. Does not apply where claimant is the negligent driver and claim is against insurer of the opposite vehicle. (Paras 7, 12)

E. Evidence — FIR, charge-sheet, MVI report — Not conclusive but relevant — Court must independently evaluate entire material

Even though FIR and charge-sheet are not substantive evidence, they are relevant and when they contradict claimant’s version, court must scrutinize oral testimony with caution, especially when it is self-serving and unsupported. Claimant failed to offer explanation for inconsistency between oral testimony and documents. (Paras 11–12)

F. Result

Claimant failed to prove negligence of opposite vehicle. Award dismissing the claim upheld.
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim orders vacated. Miscellaneous petitions closed. (Para 12)