ANISH DAYAL, J (Oral)

1. Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, counsel for claimants, assails the award dated 31st March 2023 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (‘MACT’), South-West District, Dwarka Courts in MACP No. 475/2017, whereby the claim filed by the claimants was dismissed as negligence of driver could not be proved.

2. The present case pertains to an accident that occurred on 24th August 2016, wherein the deceased, a trained Army Commando, qualified for NSG, aged 31 years, was travelling on his Honda Activa Scooty from Delhi Cantt to Manesar, Haryana, when he was hit from behind by a Chevrolet Enjoy taxi bearing no. HR-55U-7317, driven by respondent no.1, owned by respondent no.2 and insured by respondent no.3.

3. The MACT concluded that the claimants, being the Legal Representatives of the deceased (wife, two sons and parents) were unable to prove negligence on part of the driver of the offending vehicle for the purposes of the claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (‘MV Act’), and accordingly dismissed the claim.

4. Mr. Praveen Kumar Sharma, however, took this Court through the FIR, the chargesheet, the mechanical inspection report, the site plan, and the statement given by the owner under Section 133 of the MV Act.

5. Counsel for appellant relies on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1700 and Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, wherein the Courts have stated that once the chargesheet has been filed, no further evidence is required, even if the eyewitnesses have not examined.

6. He also contends that the driver and the owner did not choose to appear before the MACT to rebut the allegation of negligence, and relies upon Ramanibala Das & Anr. v. Ajit Das & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3074 and United India & Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepak Goel & Ors, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 362.

7. It was also contended that absence of an eyewitness will not be detrimental to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities as stated in Bimla Devi and Ors v. Himachal Roadways and Ors, (2009) 13 SCC 530.

8. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, counsel for Insurance Company, pressed the following arguments:

(i) There was no eyewitness to the accident.

(ii) Testimony of PW-1, Vimlesh Yadav, the wife of the deceased, would not be relevant, since she was telephonically informed by the police about the accident.

(iii) Chargesheet filed did not name any eyewitness.

(iv) Even if in the chargesheet investigation came to a conclusion of charging respondent no. l for offences under the IPC, the same does not amount to a finding of rash and negligent driving.

(v) Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meena Variyal v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 5 SCC 428.

Analysis

9. It is important to note that, as per the site plan, the collision occurred on the right side of the carriageway. The mechanical inspection report of the Chevrolet Enjoy taxi shows that the front bumper on the conductor’s side was caved in, and there were scratches and dents on the fender and front window panel.

10. Moreover, statement of owner of the offending vehicle is categorical in that the accident was caused by the car belonging to the company/ respondent no.2, and at the time of accident, respondent no.1 was driving the car.

11. Once the FIR was registered and a chargesheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle, the driver can be held negligent even in the absence of an eyewitness. This is in consonance with the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb (supra) and Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 636.

12. Recently, this Court has also considered these aspects of proving negligence, lack of eyewitnesses, principle of res ipsa loquitur and procedure entailed before the MACT in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V Shehnaj Begum & Ors, 2026:DHC:3169 and Oriental Insurance Co. v. Sunita Singh 2026:DHC:3190, wher