MACT Cannot Deny Compensation Over 'Rash and Negligent' Proof When Evidence Clearly Establishes Liability: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has delivered a significant ruling criticizing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) for its mechanical rejection of compensation claims involving a fatal road accident. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur set aside the dismissive awards of the MACT, reinforcing that tribunals must base decisions on the totality of evidence rather than unreasonable burdens of proof aimed at deceased parties.

The Tragedy at Shalini Mod

On August 28, 2016, a tragic accident occurred at Shalini Mod, Himachal Pradesh, involving a Ford Figo car registered to Boby Chauhan. The vehicle plunged into a 150-meter deep gorge, resulting in the immediate deaths of Ghanshyam, Neetu Devi, and Usha. The driver, Gian Chand, also succumbed to his injuries. The appellants, including the mother and minor children of the deceased couple, sought compensation for their loss, asserting that the accident was a direct result of reckless driving.

The Tribunal’s Misstep

The MACT had previously dismissed the claim petitions (Nos. 18 and 19 of 2017) on December 8, 2023, observing that the claimants had failed to prove "rash and negligent driving." The Tribunal specifically pointed to the absence of testimony from the deceased driver to prove the manner of the crash.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur rejected this logic as "perverse," observing that the MACT had failed to consider that the driver was deceased. Furthermore, the court noted that the FIR and subsequent police investigations provided ample documentation of the reckless driving, which the respondents failed to credibly dispute.

Legal Reasoning and Liability

The High Court held that the registered owner at the time of the accident—Boby Chauhan—retained liability, even though a transfer agreement was in progress. The Court relied on established precedents including Naveen Kumar Vs. Vijay Kumar and Vaibhav Jain Vs. Hindustan Motors Private Limited , confirming that legal status regarding motor vehicle ownership and insurance liability remains clear during the transfer process.

Regarding the insurance company’s attempt to evade liability, the Court found no evidence of breach of policy terms. It rejected the "stereo-typed" defenses raised by the insurance firm, affirming that the company was duty-bound to indemnify the owner.

Key Observations

The judgment offers stinging critiques of how lower tribunals handle accident claims:

> "The MACT has observed that Gian Chand has not been examined by the petitioners... this observation depicts that these findings have been recorded without noticing that Gian Chand had succumbed to injuries... it was not possible for the petitioners to summon a dead person as witness."

> "Findings of MACT that there is no evidence on record either in FIR produced on record or in statements, is also perverse being contrary to record."

> "The MACT has not decided all issues despite the fact that repeatedly it has been held that at the time of final adjudication, all issues should be decided on merits."

Final Verdict and Impact

Finding the MACT's approach to the evidence "misread," the High Court allowed the appeals and awarded significant compensation amounting to Rs. 14,94,000 and Rs. 12,25,200 respectively for the deaths of Neetu Devi and Ghanshyam. The Insurance Company has been directed to ensure payment by October 31, 2025.

This ruling stands as a stern warning against procedural fetishism in motor accident cases, insisting that the primary objective of the Motor Vehicles Act—the social welfare of families affected by vehicular tragedies—must not be defeated by technicalities that ignore the reality of human loss and available evidentiary records.