MAC.APP. 709/2018 1/15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 14

th

January 2026

Pronounced on: 10

th

March 2026

Uploaded on : 11

th

March 2026.

+ MAC.APP. 709/2018

JANKI & ANR …..Appellants

Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar and Mr. Ritik

Singh, Advocates.

versus

TARIF MOHD & ORS (THE NEW INDA ASSURANCE CO

LTD ) …..Respondents

Through: Mr. Ravinder Singh and Ms.

Raveesha Gupta, Advocates for R-3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act,

1988 (‘MV Act’) by claimants (parents of the deceased) assailing the

judgment dated 02

nd

April 2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal in MACT No.14749/2015 dismissing the claim petition.

The Incident

2. On 16

th

May 2014, Ish Narayan @ Nar Singh Narayan along with

his cousin brother Vijay Kumar was coming to Delhi from Hodal, Palwal,

Haryana by Maruti Van bearing no. HR-10D-6922, driven allegedly at

normal speed and on correct side of the road.

MAC.APP. 709/2018 2/15

3. When the Maruti Van/ ambulance reached near Mundkati Chowk,

P.S. Hodal, a truck bearing no. HR-38T-1232, driven by Tarif Mohd/

respondent no.1 at a very high speed, rashly and negligently in a zig zag

manner, over took the Maruti Van from its right side, and took a sharp turn

towards its left side, without any indication, after changing lane, and then

applied sharp brake. Maruti Van/ambulance struck the truck from the

backside as a result of which Ish Narayan sustained grievous head injuries.

He was taken to hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’. Claim

was filed by the parents of the deceased under Section 166 and 140 MV

Act. Written statement was filed by the driver, Sanjiv Singh, owner and the

Insurance Company. Insurance Company claimed that the petition was not

maintainable.

Impugned Award

4. It was contended by the driver, owner and the Insurance Company

that the petition was liable to be dismissed as the claimants failed to prove

any negligence of driver. It was argued that the truck did not hit the Maruti

Van, rather Maruti Van had hit the truck and driver was not responsible for

the accident. The said argument was sustained in view of contents of the

FIR. Even otherwise, if testimonies of witnesses are considered along with

materials on record, FIR, charge-sheet, post mortem report, no negligence

of driver was proved.

5. The impugned award first relied upon FIR which presented that the

truck was going ahead of the Maruti Van, it applied brakes and Maruti Van

coming from behind, hit the truck. PW-1, Ms. Janki was not an eyewitness

of the accident and PW-2, Vijay Kumar, was examined as an eyewitness

MAC.APP. 709/2018 3/15

who during his cross examination admitted that the Maruti Van/ambulance

struck the truck from its back. The MACT, therefore, concluded in

paragraph 13 of the impugned award that from the material on record and

from the testimony of witnesses, it is proved that the respondent no. 1 is

not responsible for rash and negligent driving. Reliance was placed on

Prasanna v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation., 2009 ACJ 2719

stating that the vehicle following another vehicle should take into account

the eventuality of the vehicle coming to stop abruptly. MACT also did not

rule on grant of recovery rights in favour of Insurance Company since the

liability was not established in any event.

Submissions on behalf of appellants

6. Mr. S.N. Parashar, counsel for claimants/ appellants placed the

following arguments:

(i) Firstly, PW-2/ Vijay Kumar, who was an eyewitness, stated in his

evidence by way of affidavit that on 16

th

May 2014, he along with

Ish Narayan, his cousin brother, were coming in a Maruti Van /

ambulance, when the truck (offending vehicle), driven by its Tarif

Mohammad/ respondent no.1, violated traffic rules, drove in a zig

zag manner and overtook Maruti Van from its left side, took a

sharp turn, without any indication/ horn, and applied bakes due to

which Maruti van struck the truck. On this basis, he stated that

the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of

respondent no.1/ driver of the truck and the accident could have

been averted. On this basis, Mr. Prashar contended that, at best,

it could be a case of contributory negligence, but the MACT

MAC.APP. 709/2018 4/15

could not have dismissed the liability completely.

(ii) Secondly, reliance was placed on the FIR, where statement of

PW2/ Vijay Kumar was recorded stating that the truck overtook

the Maruti Van and suddenly applied the brake without any

dipper as a result of which, Ish Narayan, who was driving the car,

could not control the car and hit the truck and sustained injuries.

On this basis, appellants’ counsel claims that FIR also recorded

the factum of sudden applying of brakes and same could not have

been ignored by the Tribunal.

(iii) Thirdly, reliance was placed on charge-sheet which replicated the

FIR and recorded the same facts and circumstances and recording

that there was sudden applying of brakes, without any indication

by the truck.

(iv) Fourthly, appellants’ counsel contended that respondent no.1, the

driver had never appeared before MACT and hence, there was no

opportunity to examine him and this ought to have been

accounted for by the MACT.

Submissions on behalf of Insurance Company

7. Mr. Ravinder Singh, counsel appearing for Insurance Company drew

Court’s attention to paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned award

to contend as follows:

(i) Firstly, this assessment was untenable since there could have

been no negligence, considering the vehicle which was being

driven at the back ought to have been cautious.

(ii) Secondly, it is stated that acquittal had been obtained in the

MAC.APP. 709/2018 5/15

criminal case by judgment dated 9

th

November 2016 passed by

the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hodal. Reliance was

placed on the judgment to state that since there was no evidence

to connect the accused with the charges framed, the accused was

entitled for benefit of doubt and therefore, same is of importance

considering the FIR and charge-sheet has been relied upon by

counsel for appellant.

(iii) Reliance was placed on Prasanna (supra) where the Kerela High

Court had opined that driver in front cannot be blamed for

negligence even if he stops the vehicle abruptly.

(iv) Reliance was also placed on Supreme Court’s decision in Lacchu

Ram & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (2014)

13 SCC 254, wherein principle of preponderance of probabilities

was applied and it was stated that mere involvement of a vehicle

in an accident cannot make driver liable unless the material on

record shows that accident had occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver.

Analysis

8. Considering the submissions of the parties, in the context of facts

and circumstances, it may be apposite to first consider the pronouncements

of Supreme Court and other Courts in relation to rear collisions, which

occur allegedly due to sudden braking of vehicle in front. The following

decisions are being considered:

8.1. Prasanna (supra), the Kerala High Court was dealing with an

accident where the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (‘K.S.R.T.C’)

MAC.APP. 709/2018 6/15

bus applied sudden brake without indication to the school bus that was

following it and hit the school bus wherein the appellant was travelling,

resulting in injuries to appellant. The case rested on police case that was

filed. MACT did not accept negligence on part of K.S.R.T.C bus driver.

The Kerala High Court was of the view that police case instituted is tenable.

It was stated that it was clear that accident occurred on account of fact that

school bus following the K.S.R.T.C bus had hit it from behind. Applying

sudden brakes by K.S.R.T.C driver was considered as reason for the

accident, and police had assumed that driver applying sudden brakes should

do so after giving any indication or signal to the vehicle following it. The

High Court stated as under:

“We are unable to accept this proposition because

application of brake suddenly is a reflex action and is

not a premeditated thing done after giving indication or

after giving signal to the vehicle following. Moreover,

a vehicle following another vehicle should take into

account the eventuality of the vehicle going in its front

stopping abruptly which may be for large number of

reasons such as a person or animal jumping in front of

it or another vehicle interfering in its way or even a

sudden obstacle appearing in the road. In all such

eventualities any moving vehicle will stop abruptly and

the driver applies break suddenly without any

premeditation and it is more in the nature of a reflex

action than a pre-meditated act to stop the vehicle. No

such driver can be blamed for negligence or rash

driving and the allegation of the Police in this case

against the KSRTC driver is thoroughly absurd. In fact,

every vehicle following another should keep a

clearance so that in the event of the vehicle going in

MAC.APP. 709/2018 7/15

front stopping abruptly, the vehicle following should be

in a position to stop without hitting the back of the

vehicle stopping abruptly in front. In this view of the

matter, we do not accept the stand that the accident is

on account of want of care by the driver of the school

bus which hit the KSRTC bus from behind.

Consequently, MACT rightly rejected appellants claim

for compensation against KSRTC. Even though counsel

for the appellant pointed out the injuries and grievance

of the appellant and sought a remand of the matter to

the MACT, we are unable to accept this contention

because an entirely new claim, if at all tenable, has to

be raised by the appellant against the driver, owner and

insurer of the school bus and cannot be done by

impleading or amending the petition which was

squarely directed against the KSRTC. We, therefore,

leave it open to the appellant to prefer any claim

petition against driver, owner and insurer of the school

bus. Appeal is dismissed with the above observation.

There will be direction to the MACT to release the

original documents to the appellant within two weeks

from date of production of this judgment along with an

undertaking by the appellant that this judgment is

accepted and no further appeal will be filed against the

same.”

(emphasis supplied)

8.2. Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 765,

the facts in consideration were about injured having driven in a Maruti car

which had dashed against a truck running ahead of it, who had suddenly

applied brakes. One of the injured persons had succumbed to her injuries;

FIR was registered, claim petition was filed and reliance was placed on

MAC.APP. 709/2018 8/15

charge-sheet filed by police. The claim was resisted stating that there was

negligence of Maruti car’s driver. The Tribunal held that accident occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti car and insurer was

therefore not liable. Matter went in appeal before the High Court where it

was dismissed finding Tribunal’s finding as sufficient. The appellant before

Supreme Court challenged the finding that accident occurred due to rash

and negligent driving of driver of Maruti car and there was contributory

negligence of truck driver, as well.

8.3. The Supreme Court after assessing findings of the Tribunal stated

that car which was following the truck was expected to maintain safe

distance as envisaged in Rules of Road Regulations, 1989. In this respect

the following was stated by the Supreme Court:

“10…. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow rod, the

subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any

case, the Maruti car which was following the truck was

expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in

Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989.

which reads thus:

“23. Distance from vehicles in front. The driver of a motor

vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a

sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision

if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.”

The expression ‘sufficient distance’ has not been defined in

the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient

distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds

gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the

following driver time to respond. The distance of 10–15 feet

between the truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe

distance for which the driver of the maruti car must take the

blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the

MAC.APP. 709/2018 9/15

issue under consideration ought to be against the

claimants.

11. The Tribunal also noted that there was no evidence on

record to indicate that the driver of the truck suddenly

applied his brake in the middle of the road. Further, the

finding on issue No.1 recorded by the Tribunal is that there

was no evidence regarding exact place of occurrence of

accident and having taken survey. Therefore, the issue

under consideration was answered against the appellants

(claimants), namely, that the subject truck was not driven

rashly and negligently by the truck driver nor had he

brought the truck in the centre of the road at right side or

applied sudden brake as being the cause of the accident.

Being a concurrent finding of fact and a possible view,

needs no interference.”

(emphasis supplied)

8.4. The Supreme Court then looked at the issue of contributory

negligence of the truck driver who was driving in front and noted as under:

“12. The next question is whether the Tribunal should have

at least answered the issue of contributory negligence of the

truck driver in favour of the appellants (claimants). The

question of contributory negligence would arise when both

parties are involved in the accident due to rash and

negligent driving. In a case such as the present one, when

the Maruti car was following the truck and no fault can be

attributed to the truck driver, the blame must rest on the

driver of the maruti car for having driven his vehicle rashly

and negligently. The High Court has justly taken note of the

fact that the driver and owner of the maruti car, as well as

insurer of that vehicle, had not been impleaded as parties

to the claim petition. The Tribunal has also taken note of

the fact that in all probability, the driver and owner of the

maruti car were not made party being close relatives of the

appellants. In such a situation, the issue of contributory

MAC.APP. 709/2018 10/15

negligence cannot be taken forward.”

(emphasis supplied)

8.5. Despite having dismissed the issue of contributory negligence and

not displacing lack of proof of evidence, the Supreme Court however,

stated that the Tribunal could have been advised to invoke Section 140 MV

Act providing for no fault liability and in that regard stated as under:

“13. However, even in such a case, the Tribunal could have

been well advised to invoke Section 140 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short “the Act”) providing for

liability of the owner of the vehicle (subject truck) involved

in the accident. It is a well settled position that fastening

liability under Section 140 of the Act on the owner of the

vehicle is regardless of the fact that the subject vehicle was

not driven rashly and negligently. We may usefully refer to

the decisions in Indra Devi and others Vs. Bagada Ram and

another and Eshwarappa alias Maheshwarappa and

Another Vs. C.S. Gurushanthappa and Another2, which are

directly on the point.

14. Accordingly, even though the appeal fails insofar as

claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, for the

appellants having failed to substantiate the factum of rash

and negligent driving by the driver of the subject truck, the

appellants must succeed in this appeal to the limited extent

of relief under Section 140 of the Act. We have no hesitation

in moulding the relief on that basis.

15. For the reasons mentioned above, this appeal is partly

allowed. The appellants are granted limited relief under

Section 140 of the Act. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are

made jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the appellants

towards compensation under Section 140 of the Act, on

account of the death of Balvinder Kaur in the accident

MAC.APP. 709/2018 11/15

which occurred on 28

th

November, 2010, along with

interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim

petition till realization.”

(emphasis supplied)

9. As far as reliance on FIR and charge-sheet is concerned, though it is

only a preliminary consideration, the evidence ultimately in a trial has to

reach a certain conclusion. In this case, decision of Sub Divisional Judicial

Magistrate, Hodal of 9

th

November 2016, has resulted in acquittal of driver.

Before the Trial Court, complainant Vijay Kumar was examined and in his

cross examination he admitted that the accident happened at night.

10. In the judgment of the criminal court, it is noted that Vijay Kumar

was examined as PW-1 who deposed that he was sitting at back in the

Maruti van /ambulance while his cousin was driving the same and the truck

driver suddenly applied the brakes due to which ambulance hit the truck.

He deposed that he did not remember the number of truck but had made

complaint to the police, which he identified. On deposing that he did not

want to say anything, the public prosecutor requested for declaring PW-1

as hostile witness and be allowed to be cross examined.

11. In his cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he had mentioned the

truck number but volunteered that it was night and was not sure. He further

stated that after the accident, the truck driver came to him, but on seeing

the crowd, he fled. He denied relevant portion of his earlier statement made

to the police. On this basis, since there was nothing incriminating against

the accused, statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. was dispensed with. The view taken by the criminal court was that

the prosecution had failed to link the accused with commission of offence

MAC.APP. 709/2018 12/15

beyond reasonable doubt. PW-1 had become hostile and PW-2, Amit, who

identified dead body of his brother, was a formal witness. No other witness

had been examined by the prosecution and there as no evidence therefore

accused was entitled for benefit of doubt.

Conclusion

12. The claim petition in the present case has been instituted under

Section 166 of the MV Act, which postulates fault liability. Consequently,

the initial burden squarely lay upon appellants to establish that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck driver. This burden was

required to be discharged on the touchstone of preponderance of

probabilities, as consistently held by the Supreme Court.

13. The standard of proof applicable in such proceedings has been

explained by the Supreme Court in M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs. v. Mahant

Suresh Das & Ors. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1440, wherein the Court, relying

upon Phipson on Evidence and Lord Denning’s observations in Miller v.

Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372, held that burden of proof of a

party is discharged only if the evidence renders its version more probable

than not. When probabilities are evenly balanced, burden cannot be said to

be discharged. Applying this principle to the present case, the evidence led

by appellants does not cross the threshold of probability so as to fasten

liability upon the truck driver.

14. Appellants primarily relied upon the FIR, charge-sheet and

testimony and cross examination of PW2 Vijay Kumar, to establish

negligence. However, these are bereft of material particulars necessary to

determine fault, such as the width of the road, lighting conditions, relative

MAC.APP. 709/2018 13/15

speed of the vehicles, or the distance maintained between them.

15. The FIR and chargesheet merely reflect the initial version of PW-

2/Vijay Kumar and do not constitute substantive evidence of negligence. In

the absence of corroborative material, when the FIR and charge-sheet are

contested, by themselves, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of

negligence.

16. In the criminal proceedings it was admitted by Vijay Kumar (PW1

therein) that the accident occurred at night and that he was seated at the

rear of the Maruti Van/ambulance while his cousin was driving. These

critical facts find no mention in the FIR or the charge-sheet. Further, his

cross-examination before the criminal court revealed material

inconsistencies, and he was declared hostile. Though acquittal in criminal

proceedings is not determinative in motor accident claims, such

proceedings cannot be altogether ignored when they shed light on the

reliability of the very evidence relied upon in the claim petition. The cross

examination of Vijay Kumar in criminal proceedings cast doubt on the

reliability of his testimony, FIR and chargesheet.

17. Appellant, having asserted rash and negligent driving by truck driver

had to prove the same based on preponderance of probabilities. The

Tribunal, upon appreciation of the material on record, rightly concluded

that appellants failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of truck driver. This Court finds no legal infirmity in the

said finding.

18. In this factual backdrop, the plea of contributory negligence raised

by appellants is also untenable. Contributory negligence presupposes proof

of negligence on the part of both drivers. In the absence of any cogent

MAC.APP. 709/2018 14/15

evidence establishing negligence of the truck driver in the first place, the

question of apportionment of liability does not arise.

19. The Supreme Court in Nishan Singh (supra) has categorically held

that in cases of rear-end collisions, the vehicle following from behind is

under a statutory duty, as per Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road

Regulations, 1989, to maintain sufficient distance to avoid collision even if

the vehicle in front suddenly slows down or stops.

20. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the Maruti Van

struck the truck from behind. There is no evidence on record regarding

speed of the truck or the Maruti car or the distance between both the cars.

The mere allegation of sudden braking, without substantiating

circumstances, is insufficient to establish negligence. The Maruti Van

failed to maintain safe distance from the truck especially during night time

where there can be low visibility, in that eventuality when the vehicle in

front applied sudden brake Maruti Van collided with the vehicle causing

rear collision. Therefore, as per law laid down in Nishan Singh (supra) and

Prassana (supra), application of sudden brakes is often a reflex action

necessitated by road conditions, and truck driver, driving in front cannot be

faulted on that ground alone.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion and having analysed the

evidence in light of the settled jurisprudence governing rear-end collisions,

this Court holds that appellants have failed to establish negligence even on

the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

22. The impugned award, therefore, warrants no interference.

23. Notwithstanding the claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, this

Court is of the view that appellants are entitled to limited relief under

MAC.APP. 709/2018 15/15

Section 140 of the Act on the principle of no-fault liability. The Supreme

Court in Nishan Singh (supra) has expressly held that even where

negligence is not proved under Section 166 MV Act, court would be

justified in moulding the relief under Section 140 of MV Act. In these

circumstances, and in order to advance the beneficial object of the

legislation, this Court deems it appropriate to award compensation under

Section 140 of MV Act. Accordingly, owner of the offending vehicle is

held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to appellants towards compensation

for death on no-fault basis, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum

from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization.

24. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this court.

(ANISH DAYAL)

JUDGE

MARCH 10, 2026/sm/zb