ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Proof of accident and negligence — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probability — FIR and charge sheet sufficient in absence of rebuttal evidence. (Paras 17–21, 24) The claimant, a bus driver, sustained total loss of vision in his left eye when the offending Volvo bus dashed against the bus driven by him. FIR and charge sheet were filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. No contra evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Court reiterated that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ratio Decidendi: In a motor accident claim, FIR, charge sheet and consistent ocular evidence of the injured claimant are sufficient to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability in the absence of rebuttal evidence.

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Proof of accident and negligence — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probability — FIR and charge sheet sufficient in absence of rebuttal evidence. (Paras 17–21, 24) The claimant, a bus driver, sustained total loss of vision in his left eye when the offending Volvo bus dashed against the bus driven by him. FIR and charge sheet were filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. No contra evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Court reiterated that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Ratio Decidendi: In a motor accident claim, FIR, charge sheet and consistent ocular evidence of the injured claimant are sufficient to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability in the absence of rebuttal evidence.

advocatemmmohan

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Proof of accident and negligence — Standard of proof — Preponderance of probability — FIR and charge sheet sufficient in absence of rebuttal evidence. (Paras 17–21, 24)

The claimant, a bus driver, sustained total loss of vision in his left eye when the offending Volvo bus dashed against the bus driven by him. FIR and charge sheet were filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. No contra evidence was adduced by the respondents.

The Court reiterated that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In a motor accident claim, FIR, charge sheet and consistent ocular evidence of the injured claimant are sufficient to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability in the absence of rebuttal evidence.

Insurer’s Defence — Irrelevance of Driving Licence of Injured Claimant. (Paras 22–23)

The insurer attempted to rely upon aspects concerning the claimant’s driving licence. The Court held that such evidence is irrelevant for determining the insurer’s liability for the offending vehicle. The insurer may question licence of its insured’s driver, not that of the injured claimant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a claim under Section 166 M.V. Act, the driving licence particulars of the injured claimant have no bearing on the liability of the insurer of the offending vehicle.

Assessment of Disability — Medical Disability vis-à-vis Functional Disability — Professional Driver losing vision in one eye. (Paras 31–34)

The Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 30%. The claimant, aged 36 years, was a professional bus driver and suffered total loss of vision in one eye.

The Court held that though medical disability was 30%, functional disability for a professional driver must be treated as 100%, as he is rendered incapable of continuing his profession. Multiplier ‘15’ was applied.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a professional driver suffers permanent visual impairment disabling him from driving, medical disability of 30% may be treated as 100% functional disability for the purpose of calculating loss of earning capacity.

Determination of Income — Addition of Future Prospects in Injury Cases. (Para 31)

Monthly income for 2005 was assessed at Rs.4,000/- and 30% added towards future prospects, fixing annual income at Rs.62,400/-.

Ratio Decidendi: Even in injury cases involving permanent disability affecting earning capacity, addition towards future prospects is permissible while computing loss of future earnings.

Multiplier Method in Permanent Disability Cases. (Para 34)

For age 36 years, multiplier ‘15’ was applied. Loss of future income calculated at Rs.62,400 × 15 = Rs.9,36,000/-.

Ratio Decidendi: The multiplier method applicable in death cases is equally applicable in permanent disability cases for computing loss of future earning capacity.

Heads of Compensation — Broad-Based and Liberal Approach — Just Compensation. (Paras 25, 35–36)

The Court enhanced compensation under various heads including pain and suffering, transportation, medical expenses, attendant charges, loss of income during treatment, permanent disability, loss of amenities and future treatment. Total compensation enhanced from Rs.2,53,600/- to Rs.11,36,000/-.

Ratio Decidendi: Compensation in injury cases must be realistic and comprehensive, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads to ensure just compensation.

Award Beyond Claimed Amount — Permissibility under Section 168 M.V. Act. (Para 37)

Though the claim was Rs.8,00,000/-, the Court enhanced compensation beyond what was originally awarded, reiterating that there is no restriction on awarding compensation exceeding the claimed amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal and Appellate Court are empowered to award compensation exceeding the claimed amount if evidence warrants, as the statutory mandate is to award “just compensation”.

Final Outcome

In M.A.C.M.A. No. 2224 of 2012 (Insurance Company Appeal):
Dismissed. Liability of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 upheld.

In M.A.C.M.A. No. 737 of 2012 (Claimant’s Appeal):
Allowed. Compensation enhanced to Rs.11,06,000/- (as per operative portion) with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 directed to deposit the amount within two months. No order as to costs.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN