Mumbai: MACT Denies 2018 Accident Compensation Despite Injuries, Cites Failure To Prove Negligence

Mumbai, April 23: In an interesting order, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mumbai, has held that while an accident victim had indeed suffered injuries—proved through medical records—he was not entitled to compensation due to failure to establish negligence on the part of the alleged offending vehicle.

Tribunal dismisses claim petition

The Tribunal, presided over by S. E. Bangar, dismissed a claim petition filed by Shankar B. Jha (32), a Kandivali resident, in connection with a road accident that occurred in July 2018.

Accident details and claims

According to the petition, Jha was travelling on a motorcycle on July 22, 2018, near a BMC godown at Poisar in Kandivali East when another motorcycle allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with him. He claimed to have sustained grievous injuries, including fractures to his right foot and finger, and stated that he incurred medical and incidental expenses.

Jha further claimed that he worked as a compounder at a pet clinic, earning Rs 40,000 per month, and sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Defence contests negligence

The owner of the alleged offending motorcycle contested the claim, arguing that the accident occurred due to Jha’s own negligence. According to the defence, Jha was riding recklessly, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, and abruptly turned his vehicle, leading to the collision.

The rider of the motorcycle failed to appear before the Tribunal, and the matter proceeded ex parte against him.

Key issues and findings

The Tribunal framed key issues, including whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving and whether the applicant was entitled to compensation.

While the Tribunal accepted that Jha had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident—based on medical records from Suchak Hospital—it held that negligence was not proved.

Lack of evidence proves decisive

A significant factor in the dismissal was that Jha did not enter the witness box or file an affidavit to support his claims. The Tribunal observed that this omission created a crucial evidentiary gap.

“Police papers such as FIR and spot panchanama establish that an accident occurred, but in the absence of the claimant’s testimony, eyewitnesses, or a charge sheet, they are insufficient to conclusively prove negligence,” the Tribunal noted.

It further observed that the testimony of the opposing party’s witness, which attributed negligence to Jha, remained unchallenged as there was no cross-examination.

Also Watch:

Burden of proof not met

Holding that proof of negligence is essential for compensation under Section 166, the Tribunal concluded that the claim could not succeed. It also noted the absence of documentary proof regarding income, medical expenses, or disability.

“The applicant has failed to discharge the burden of proof on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities,” the Tribunal stated.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/