2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6257
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
SUNITA SINGH & ORS. – Respondent
MAC.APP.-174/2021
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.K. Soni
For the Respondents: Aseem Mehrotra, Deeksha Mehrotra
In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, negligence must be proved, but the standard is preponderance of probabilities. Reliance on FIR, charge sheet, and testimonies from criminal proceedings is sufficient to establish negligence, especially when the eyewitness is unavailable.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 163A, 169, 168, 173 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 304A - Negligence in motor accident claim - Standard of proof in claim under Section 166 - Preponderance of probabilities - Reliance on criminal proceedings (FIR, charge sheet, witness testimony in criminal court) - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - Compensation - Computation of income including commission - Deduction towards personal expenses - Dependency of parents - Interest rate.
(B) Proof of negligence - In a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is required to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, the standard of proof is not beyond reasonable doubt but on preponderance of probabilities. The Tribunal can rely on the FIR, charge sheet, and testimonies recorded in criminal proceedings, especially when the eye-witness is unavailable or cannot be examined. The mere filing of a charge sheet against the driver and the fact that the witness examined in the criminal court deposed about the rash and negligent driving is sufficient to establish negligence. (Paras 18-23, 40-51)
(C) Assessment of income - The income of the deceased for computing loss of dependency includes not only salary but also additional earnings such as commission from an insurance company, provided the same is supported by documentary evidence. The average of the last three financial years can be taken to determine such income. (Paras 52-55)
(D) Deduction towards personal and living expenses - Where the deceased has four dependents (wife, child, and aged parents), deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses is appropriate, as the father and mother are considered dependents if they are above 60 years of age and not shown to be independently earning. (Paras 56-57) (E) Interest - The rate of interest at 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal, with penal interest at 12% for delayed payment, is not interfered with as it was based on prevalent fixed deposit rates. (Para 58)
Facts of the case:
On 24th September 2010, the deceased, aged about 35 years, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by his colleague. A bus driven by the respondent driver hit the motorcycle from behind, causing fatal injuries. The claimants (wife, daughter, and parents) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal originally awarded compensation, but on appeal by the Insurance Company, the matter was remanded for further evidence. After remand, the claimants could not produce the eye-witness (the motorcycle driver) due to non-availability. They relied on the criminal record - FIR, charge sheet, and the testimony of the eye-witness recorded in the criminal court. The Tribunal held the bus driver negligent and awarded Rs.63,81,940/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. The Insurance Company appealed.
Issues: (1) Whether the claimants proved negligence on the part of the bus driver in the absence of examination of the eye-witness before the Tribunal. (2) Whether the income from commission earned by the deceased as an insurance agent should be included in the assessment of income. (3) Whether the deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses was correct when the father of the deceased was treated as a dependent. (4) Whether the rate of interest awarded was excessive.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s finding on negligence, holding that the reliance on the criminal record - particularly the FIR, charge sheet, and the deposition of the eye-witness in the criminal court - was sufficient to establish negligence on the preponderance of probabilities. The Court rejected the challenge to the inclusion of commission income, noting that it was supported by documents. The deduction of 1/4th was affirmed as the parents were aged and dependent. The interest rate was upheld as reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: In a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence must be proved, but the standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal may rely on criminal proceedings (FIR, charge sheet, and testimonies from criminal court) when the eye-witness is unavailable, and such reliance is sufficient to fasten liability on the insurer. The income of the deceased includes regular commissions from other employment, and the dependency of aged parents justifies a lower deduction for personal expenses.
Result: Appeal dismissed. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.1,45,000/- with accrued interest with the Registrar General within 4 weeks, to be disbursed to the claimants.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 6th February 2026 Pronounced on : 17th April 2026 Uploaded on : 18th April 2026 + MAC.APP. 174/2021 & CM APPL. 14103/2021 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD .....Appellant Through: Mr. A.K. Soni, Adv.
versus SUNITA SINGH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Aseem Mehrotra and Ms.
Deeksha Mehrotra Advs. for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the impugned judgment and award dated 26th November 2020 passed in MACP No.249/2017 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Tribunal’) whereby, the Tribunal allowed a total sum of Rs.63,81,940/- as compensation to be paid to the claimants, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing the petition within 30 days, failing which interest to be paid at the rate of 12% per annum for the delayed period.
2. Appellant/Insurance Company is agitating the appeal essentially on the ground that the Tribunal relied merely on criminal record of respondent no.5/driver, despite negligence not having been proved by respondent nos. 1 to 4 (hereinafter, ‘claimants’) who failed to produce any eyewitness even after the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. According to appellant/Insurance Company, the motorcycle driver-Pawan Kumar should have been held solely or at least contributorily negligent. Moreover, compensation awarded by the Tribunal has been challenged as being exorbitant and unsustainable, since the income of deceased was wrongly assessed by adding annual commission given by Life Insurance Corporation (‘LIC’), without any proof of actual loss; incorrectly deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses by treating father of deceased as a dependent. Challenge was also on the award of interest at 7.5% with penal interest at 12%.
The Incident
3. The incident occurred on 24th September 2010 at about 8:10 a.m., when Anupam Kumar Singh (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) was traveling on a motorcycle bearing no. DL-6ST-9807 with his colleague, Pawan Kumar, from Naraina towards Munirka. When they reached Moti Bagh Flyover, a bus bearing no.DL-lPB-3806 driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.5, hit the motorcycle from behind causing fatal injuries to the deceased. The offending vehicle/bus was owned by respondent no.6 and insured with appellant/Insurance Company. Deceased was about 35 years of age at the time of accident and was working as senior manager/ commission agent and earning approximately about Rs.38,500/- per month.
4. Claim petition was filed by his wife, daughter and parents seeking compensation. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle appeared but did not file their written statements, while the insurer contested the claim.
Impugned award
5. The claim was originally decided by Tribunal vide order dated 31st October 2012 and had returned a finding that death had occurred due to involvement of offending vehicle/bus and negligent driving of the bus driver, primarily on basis of statement of PW-1 (wife of deceased /claimant and copy of investigation proceedings in FIR No. 308/2010 registered at P.S. R. K. Puram. Appellant/Insurance Company filed an appeal MAC.APP. No.172/2013 which was disposed of by this Court on 9th May 2016 noting the contentions of Insurance Company that no evidence was adduced about the involvement of offending vehicle/bus and negligence on the part of its driver and that PW-1, the solitary witness examined, was admittedly not an eye witness. Matter was then remanded back to Tribunal with liberty granted to claimants to lead further evidence and for contesting parties to cross examine witnesses, pursuant to which the Tribunal could pass a fresh judgment. Post the remand, the impugned judgement and award have been passed.
6. Tribunal took note of the details of accident and that FIR No. 308/2010 was registered on 25th September 2010 at P.S. R. K Puram, basis statement of Pawan Kum
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
