Motor Accident Claims | Unchallenged Charge Sheet & Eye-Witness Testimony Suffice to Prove Liability: MP HC Awards Rs. 53.8 Lakh Compensation

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the mere failure to produce toll plaza records cannot negate a claim of accident liability when a charge sheet has been filed and unchallenged eyewitness testimony exists. The judgment reinforces that the burden to disprove involvement lies with the alleged wrongdoer, not the claimant.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The appellants, survivors of Anoop Chourasia, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation for his death on 14.01.2019. The deceased, aged 46, was driving his car near Himpatpur, District Etah, Uttarakhand, when he was allegedly struck by a truck bearing registration No. M.H. 18 B.G. 0504, driven rashly and negligently. He succumbed to injuries during treatment, and a postmortem was conducted at District Hospital, Etah.

Key Facts

• The deceased was employed as a Civil Contractor in Haldwani, Ranikhet, District Almora, earning Rs.50,000 per month, with additional agricultural income of Rs.2,00,000 annually.
• The truck was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent No.3).
• The driver and owner of the truck did not appear before the Tribunal and were proceeded against ex parte.
• The incident was reported to Police Station Kotwali Dehat, Etah, where Crime No.24/2019 was registered under Section 304-A, 427, and 279 IPC.
• A charge sheet was filed in Criminal Case No.7308/2019 against the driver of the offending truck.
• The appellants produced two witnesses: Anita Chourasia (widow, AW.1) and Sintu (eyewitness, AW.2).
• The Insurance Company examined five witnesses: Deepak Makhaji (NAW.1), Anand Gangil (NAW.2), Sanjay Singh (Investigating Officer, NAW.3), Ajay Yadav (NAW.4), and Ashwini Sharma (Insurance Investigator, NAW.5).
• Documents Exhibits P/1 to P/3 (FIR, charge sheet, postmortem report) and D/1 to D/23 were filed.

Procedural History

• 14.01.2019: Accident occurred near Himpatpur, District Etah, Uttarakhand.
• 14.01.2019: FIR registered at Kotwali Dehat Police Station, Crime No.24/2019.
• 2019: Charge sheet filed in Criminal Case No.7308/2019 under Section 279, 427, and 304-A IPC.
• 2020: Claim Petition No.37/2020 filed before the II Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sendhwa.
• 04.11.2023: Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the involvement of truck M.H. 18 B.G. 0504 was not proved.
• 2024: Misc. Appeal No.6290/2024 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore.
• 29.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi.

The Parties' Positions

Appellants (Survivors): Argued that the eyewitness testimony of Sintu (AW.2) was unimpeached, the investigating officer (NAW.3) confirmed the truck’s involvement, and the charge sheet conclusively established liability. The toll plaza records were incomplete and inconclusive.

Respondent (Insurance Company): Contended that the truck was falsely implicated, as toll plaza records showed no passage of the vehicle between 01.01.2019 and 30.01.2019. They relied on testimony of NAW.1, NAW.2, NAW.4, and NAW.5 to argue absence of proof.

Relief Sought

The appellants sought: (1) setting aside of the Tribunal’s order dated 04.11.2023; (2) award of compensation of Rs.53,72,000 as computed by the Tribunal; (3) 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition; and (4) apportionment of the award among survivors.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the failure to produce toll plaza records can override the positive evidence of eyewitness testimony and a duly filed charge sheet in establishing liability in a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

Learned counsel argued that the Tribunal’s finding was perverse because:

• The eyewitness Sintu (AW.2) testified unequivocally that the truck caused the accident, and his testimony was not cross-examined into material contradiction.
• The investigating officer (NAW.3) in the criminal case confirmed the truck’s involvement and filed a charge sheet.
• The Insurance Company’s witnesses admitted they did not produce the actual list of vehicles passing through toll plazas, rendering their testimony speculative.
• The driver and owner of the truck, who could have provided the best rebuttal, remained absent.
• The Tribunal erred in disregarding the charge sheet and eyewitness account in favor of unverified hearsay.
• Reliance was placed on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kankudi & Ors. (ILR 2024 M.P. 240) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tasleem Bi & Ors. (ILR 2024 M.P. 212), where similar findings were set aside.

For the Respondent

The Insurance Company contended that:

• The absence of the truck’s passage through toll plazas between 01.01.2019 and 30.01.2019 proved it could not have been at the scene.
• The testimony of NAW.1, NAW.2, and NAW.4 established this fact.
• The charge sheet was not conclusive proof of liability, as it was based on preliminary investigation.
• The Tribunal correctly applied the principle that the claimant bears the burden of proving the accident’s cause.
• The award computation was irrelevant since liability was not established.

The Court's Analysis

The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found the Tribunal’s conclusion to be legally unsustainable. The judgment emphasized that the burden to disprove involvement lies with the party alleging false implication, not the claimant.

"It is the duty of the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part but they were unable to adduce any evidence in this regard. So a presumption must be drawn against them in this regard."

The Court noted that the investigating officer (NAW.3), who conducted the criminal investigation, explicitly stated that the offending truck was involved and that a charge sheet was filed accordingly. This was corroborated by the eyewitness Sintu (AW.2), whose testimony remained unchallenged in cross-examination.

The Insurance Company’s reliance on toll plaza records was rejected because:

• The witnesses who testified about toll records admitted they did not produce the actual vehicle logs.
• There was no evidence that toll plazas were the only route to the accident site.
• The testimony of Ashwini Sharma (NAW.5) was purely hearsay, based on the statements of others.

The Court further held that the absence of the driver and owner from the proceedings invited an adverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (g), Indian Evidence Act.

The Court relied on two coordinate bench judgments: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kankudi & Ors. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tasleem Bi & Ors., both of which held that a charge sheet filed after investigation, coupled with unimpeached eyewitness testimony, is sufficient to establish liability in a claim petition.

The Court also corrected the Tribunal’s computation of compensation. While the Tribunal had awarded Rs.53,72,000, the Court increased the filial consortium amount from Rs.40,000 to Rs.44,000 per child, in line with the 10% enhancement mandated by Pranay Sethi, resulting in a total compensation of Rs.53,80,000.

The Verdict

The appeal was allowed. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 04.11.2023 and held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of truck M.H. 18 B.G. 0504. The appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.53,80,000 with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition (2020). The amount shall be divided equally among the three survivors: the widow and two sons. Fifty percent of each share shall be paid in cash, and the remaining fifty percent shall be deposited in a fixed deposit for one year. The Tribunal may release the entire amount if satisfied that the claimants’ needs require it. The respondents are jointly and severally liable.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Charge Sheet Is Strong Evidence of Liability

• Practitioners must treat a charge sheet filed under Section 304-A IPC as prima facie proof of negligence in motor accident claims.
• Opposing parties cannot rely on absence of toll records alone to rebut such evidence.

Eyewitness Testimony Must Be Discredited, Not Ignored

• If an eyewitness’s testimony is not cross-examined on material aspects, it cannot be discarded without reason.
• Tribunals must explain why such testimony is unreliable, not merely prefer speculative documentary gaps.

Burden of Disproving Lies with the Accused

• The onus to prove false implication rests on the insurer or owner, not the claimant.

• Failure to produce the driver or owner invites adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act.

• Always file the charge sheet and FIR as key exhibits in claim petitions.

• Argue that incomplete or unproduced toll records are not conclusive proof of non-involvement.

• Cite Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kankudi & Ors. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tasleem Bi & Ors. as binding precedents.

• In compensation computation, apply the 10% annual enhancement for filial consortium as per Pranay Sethi.

• Ensure apportionment of award among survivors is clearly directed, with safeguards for minors.