JUDGMENT

%

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed assailing the impugned award dated 12th September 2025 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [‘MACT’], West, Tis Hazari Courts in MACT No. 313/2019, awarding compensation of Rs.1,16,42,016/- along with 9% interest to the legal representatives of deceased (hereinafter, ‘claimants’).

The Accident

2. The accident in question occurred on 10th August 2018 at about 01:30 p.m. in front of Shop No. 6 and 7, near Arya Samaj Mandir, Block No. 2, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi when Smt. Teena Makkar (hereinafter, ‘deceased’) along with her sister-in-law Smt. Honey Makkar were travelling by foot. It had been claimed that, when they turned towards Chhatri wala park from Arya Samaj crossing, a truck bearing registration no. DL-1M-3658 (hereinafter, ‘offending vehicle/truck’) driven by respondent no.3/Phool Kumar (hereinafter, ‘driver’) hit the deceased, due to which she fell down and the rear tyre of the offending vehicle ran over her.

3. It was further alleged that the driver of offending vehicle stopped the vehicle for a while, saw both the pedestrians from his window and fled away in the truck.

4. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on 10th August 2018 at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, Delhi (‘DDU’) and her post-mortem was conducted. FIR No. 515/2018 was registered at P.S. Rajouri Garden, under Sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) on the complaint of eyewitness-Smt. Honey Makkar.

5. Detailed Accident Report (‘DAR’) was filed stating that respondent no.3/Phool Kumar was the driver of offending vehicle and appellant/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’) was the registered owner. DAR was accompanied by the chargesheet and other documents, including, Mechanical Inspection Report (‘MIR’).

Submissions on behalf of parties

6. Ms. Tajinder Virdi, counsel for appellant/MCD, contended that:

(i) Firstly, the eyewitness-Smt. Honey Makkar (‘PW-2’), sister-in-law of the deceased, who was travelling on foot, along with deceased is an interested witness and, therefore, her testimony cannot be relied upon.

(ii) Secondly, there was no CCTV footage, despite the accident having occurred in a crowded area and;

(iii) Thirdly, the FIR and charge-sheet have been registered mainly on the basis of statement of eyewitness-Smt. Honey Makker, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon.

7. To the contrary, Mr. Amulya Dhingra, counsel for respondents/claimants, contended that:

(i) Firstly, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in Ranjeet v. Abdul Kayam Neb 2025 SCC OnLine SC 497, once the FIR and charge-sheet are on record, the same have a persuasive value on the issue of negligence and no further evidence is required, even if eyewitnesses are not examined.

(ii) Secondly, no evidence has been led by appellant/MCD before the MACT;

(iii) Thirdly, PW-2 was walking along with the deceased and there could not have been any better witness than her and;

(iv) Fourthly, driver of the offending vehicle who passed away during the pendency of proceedings, had given a statement that he was a gardener and had been asked to drive the vehicle by the supervisor.

8. In order to buttress his submissions, Mr. Dhingra, relied upon the following decisions:

(a) Where the witness is related to the claimant – Sunita & Ors. v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 486 and Baban Shankar Daphal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 137.

(b) Touchstone of preponderance of probabilities – Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656, Sunita (supra), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Tanuj Sehrawat, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 203 and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanchan & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 155.

(c) Principle of res ipsa loquitur - Kanchan (supra).

(d) Relevance of FIR and Chargesheet in Motor Accident Claims - Mangla Ram (supra) and Smt. Rashmi Maravi & Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors., Misc. App. No. 7546/2023.

(e) No evidence led f