Negligence in motor vehicle accidents is assessed based on evidence and preponderance of probabilities; amounts received under mediclaim policies are not deducted from statutory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the insurer of the offending Fortuner vehicle No.DL-1-N-8711 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad in M.A.C.P. No.108 of 2018 (Sonu Kumar vs. Sachin Joshi and others), whereby for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident that occurred on 04.12.2017, a compensation of Rs.5,20,100/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum has been awarded to the claimant, which has been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the above offending vehicle No.DL-1-N-8711.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant was driving his motorcycle No.UP-14-BP-4276 in a rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident, who tried to overtake the offending Fortuner vehicle from the left side, which was impermissible. Learned counsel submitted that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the claimant, but the Tribunal has concluded that the claimant was having only 30% contributory negligence in the accident, which was erroneous. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances and keeping in view the site plan prepared in the criminal case as well as the oral evidence on record, it was proved that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the claimant. It was further submitted that the claimant was reimbursed for the expenses of treatment, since he was having a mediclaim policy, but the Tribunal has ignored this fact and has held that the reimbursment made to the claimant in pursuance of his mediclaim policy was not liable to be deducted from the compensation payable to the claimant, which is erroneous. Learned counsel in support of his submission relied upon the case law of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Akber Badsha , 2016 (1) T.A.C. 305 (D.B. Kerala). It was further submitted that since the claimant has already been reimbursed the medical expenses, since he was having a mediclaim policy, as such, if again, he is reimbursed the expenses of medical treatment, then it will amount to bonanza, which is impermissible. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

4. The claimant Sonu Kumar examined himself as PW-1 and Vinod Kumar as PW-2, whereas the claim petition was not contested by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and it was decided ex-parte against them. Further, the Insurance Company has not led any oral evidence.

5. PW-1 deposed that on 04.12.2017 at about 12:30 p.m., he was driving his motorcycle No. UP-14-BP-4276 from Pari Chowk, Noida to Jewar. When he reached ahead of Kheda Bridge and was crossing the canal bridge, his motorcycle was hit from behind by vehicle No. DL-1-N-8711, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries. He was taken, with the help of other persons and the police, to Kailash Hospital, Jewar for treatment. He further deposed that an F.I.R. regarding the accident was registered at Police Station Rabupura, District Gautambuddhnagar, being Case Crime No. 283 of 2017, under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 427 I.P.C.

6. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was hit by the offending vehicle from behind, that he was driving his motorcycle on his left side of the road, and that the offending vehicle did not blow the horn. He further deposed that after the accident he became unconscious, and while in an unconscious state, he was admitte