The Madras High Court’s judgment in CMA No. 2773 of 2019 reasserts a foundational principle in motor accident jurisprudence: compensation cannot be awarded without established proof of negligence. This ruling provides critical clarity on evidentiary standards, the weight of FIRs, and the methodology for calculating loss of dependency - offering practitioners a definitive roadmap for future claims.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The deceased, Rajavignesh, a 22-year-old final-year engineering student and part-time mechanic earning Rs.15,000 per month, died in a two-wheeler accident on NH-47 on 22.03.2015. He was riding pillion behind his friend Naveen Raj, who allegedly drove rashly and negligently, causing the collision. The deceased was admitted to Avinashi Government Hospital and succumbed to his injuries.
Procedural History
- 2015: Claim petition filed by parents (Respondents 1 and 2) before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, seeking Rs.50,00,000.
- 2018: Tribunal awarded Rs.30,06,000, including compensation for loss of dependency, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and transport.
- 2019: Appellant, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award.
- Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear before the High Court despite notice.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the tribunal’s award on grounds of: (1) failure to prove negligence; (2) reliance on unreliable FIR; (3) absence of driving license, RC, or insurance documents; (4) erroneous calculation of income and future prospects; and (5) non-compliance with Section 168 of the MV Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether proof of negligence is a sine qua non for awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether an FIR can serve as admissible evidence to establish negligence in the absence of a charge sheet or formal police investigation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel for Reliance General Insurance contended that:
- Negligence must be specifically pleaded and proved; mere accident does not imply legal fault.
- Reliance on FIR as substantive proof was legally untenable, citing Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla.
- No documents - driving license, RC, or insurance - were produced to establish the rider’s lawful operation of the vehicle.
- The deceased, as a student, was ineligible for notional income under Pranay Sethi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd..
- The tribunal failed to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 168.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not appear or file any written submissions. No counter-arguments were presented before the High Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evidentiary framework governing motor accident claims under the MV Act and the Indian Evidence Act. It held that while an FIR is not substantive evidence, it is admissible under Section 157 of the Evidence Act to corroborate testimony of witnesses.
"The FIR is the foremost information the police gets about the commission of an offence and which can be used to corroborate the story put-forward by the first informant under Section 157 of the Evidence Act."
The Court found that the FIR, which recorded rash and negligent driving by the rider, was corroborated by the deposition of PW1 (father of the deceased) and PW2 (eye witness). Neither witness’s testimony was contradicted or impeached. The Court emphasized that the burden of disproving negligence lay with the insurer, which failed to adduce any evidence.
Regarding compensation, the Court rejected the tribunal’s use of Rs.18,000 as monthly income, noting that the claim petition itself stated Rs.15,000 and PW3’s testimony of Rs.17,000 was uncorroborated. The Court fixed Rs.15,000 as the baseline, applying a 40% future prospect (consistent with Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation) to arrive at Rs.21,000. Half of this, Rs.10,500, was deemed the deceased’s contribution to his family, multiplied by 18 years (multiplier for age 22).
The Court enhanced loss of consortium from Rs.25,000 to Rs.40,000 per parent, reduced funeral expenses to Rs.15,000, and added Rs.15,000 for loss of estate - recognizing the deceased’s potential to build assets. Transport costs were reduced to Rs.10,000.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was partly allowed. The Madras High Court modified the tribunal’s award, reducing total compensation from Rs.30,06,000 to Rs.23,88,000. The Court held that proof of negligence is mandatory and can be established through corroborated FIR and witness testimony. Interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition was granted, with payment due within 30 days.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proof of Negligence Cannot Be Presumed
- Practitioners must now explicitly plead and prove negligence in every claim petition under Section 166 MV Act.
- Insurers cannot rely on the mere occurrence of an accident to deny liability.
- Claimants must secure witness statements and corroborative documents early to avoid dismissal.
FIR Is Admissible as Corroborative Evidence
- FIRs are not conclusive, but under Section 157, they are valid to support witness testimony.
- Insurers must challenge FIRs through cross-examination or counter-evidence; silence amounts to acceptance.
- Courts will not require a charge sheet if FIR is consistent with credible eyewitness accounts.
Income Calculation Must Be Grounded in Pleadings
- Future prospects for students must be calculated from the lowest verifiable income - petition claims or pay slips, not speculative earnings.
- A 40% future prospect is permissible for young earners, but only if income is substantiated.
- Tribunals must justify deviations from pleaded income with documentary support.
