Supreme Court: Chargesheet Sufficient To Prove Negligence, Eyewitness Testimony Not Mandatory in motor accident claim petition

It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver. {Para 4}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025

RANJEET & ANR. Vs  ABDUL KAYAM NEB & ANR.

Dated: FEBRUARY 25, 2025.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In an accident which took place on

13.06.2006, one ‘Ramkaran’ was alleged to have

been hit by the bus leading to his death. An

FIR was lodged wherein charge sheet was

submitted against the driver of the bus. On the

claim being preferred to the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”., since, the eye-witnesses were

not produced, the Tribunal refused to grant any

compensation. The decision of the Tribunal was

upheld by the High Court.

4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of

the opinion that the Tribunal and the High

Court both manifestly erred in law in refusing

to grant any compensation to the claimants.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the

case, we would have remitted the matter to the

Tribunal for determination of the compensation

to be payable to the claimants. However,

looking to the fact that the accident had

occurred in the year 2006 and now, we are in

2025, we consider it appropriate to determine

the compensation as under considering the

evidence on record:

Since the deceased was an agricultural

labourer, taking the notional income of the

deceased to be Rs.6,000/- i.e. Rs.72,000/- per

annum and after deducting 1/3rd towards

personal expenses the dependency comes to

Rs.48,000/- per annum. Now applying the

multiplier of 15 as the deceased was aged about

38 years, the loss comes to (Rs. 48,000/- x 15)

Rs. 7,05,000/-. Adding 40% towards future

prospects the amount comes to (Rs. 7,05,000/- +

Rs. 2,82,000/-) Rs. 9,87,000/-. To this we add

Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses which

amount to Rs. 10,02,000/- which amount shall be

payable with interest of 6% per annum from the

date of claim petition.

In short, the determination of

compensation is as under:

S.No. Particulars Amount

(in Rs.)

1. Annual Income @ 6,000/- p.m.:= 72,000/- p.a.

Deduction of 1/3rd towards

Personal Expenses : = 24,000/-p.a.

Dependency arrived at : = 48,000/- p.a.

2. Applying Multiplier of 15

(48,000 x 15) = 7,05,000/-

Add: 40% for future prospects

(7,05,000 x 40%) = 2,82,000/- 9,87,000/-

3. Add further for funeral expenses 15,000/-

 Total 10,02,000/-

Note: The aforesaid compensation shall carry

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim

petition till its payment.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated

2.7.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature

for Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous

Appeal No. 1385 of 2008 and the Order dated

11.12.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal are set aside and the appeal is

allowed in the above terms.

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall

stand disposed of.

…………………………………………………...J.

 [PANKAJ MITHAL]

…………………………………………………...J.

 [S.V.N. BHATTI]

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 25, 2025.

Print Page