A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Delhi has denied compensation to an eight-year-old boy who sustained injuries in a road accident in March 2023. The Tribunal stated that liability must be established through credible evidence, not solely based on a charge sheet.
Presiding Officer Vijay Kumar Jha was adjudicating a claim petition filed by the parents of the child, seeking compensation for injuries allegedly caused by rash and negligent driving. The claimants asserted that their son, then eight years old, was crossing a road in Sundar Nagri with his father when a motorcycle hit him, resulting in serious injuries to his right kidney. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered, and a charge sheet was filed against the motorcycle rider.
However, the Tribunal noted several discrepancies in the evidence presented. It observed that hospital records did not corroborate the father’s testimony regarding taking his son to the hospital immediately after the accident. The medico-legal certificate, instead, listed different individuals. The Tribunal emphasized that while a charge sheet is a significant document, it does not automatically obligate the court to award compensation. The burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish negligence and the extent of injuries based on the preponderance of probabilities.
The Tribunal further pointed out potential inadequacies in the police investigation, including contradictions regarding the identity of the offending vehicle. It stated that if a charge sheet alone were sufficient, further inquiry into accident claims would be unnecessary. The judicial body stressed the importance of establishing a clear causal link between the accident, the alleged negligence of the driver, and the injuries sustained by the victim.
Legal provisions governing motor accident claims in Delhi, such as Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, require claimants to prove the negligence of the other party. While certain provisions, like Section 163A, allow for compensation based on a fixed formula without needing to prove fault, the present case appears to have been adjudicated under a framework requiring proof of negligence. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal functions as a specialized court to handle such cases within Delhi, with various benches located across district courts.
Recent rulings from the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court have underscored the principle that compensation should be liberal but based on substantiated claims. For instance, in one case, the Supreme Court enhanced compensation for a minor victim, emphasizing that the law values life and limb generously. However, these decisions also highlight the necessity of presenting robust evidence to support claims for damages, including medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of future earnings or earning capacity.
The denial of compensation in this instance serves as a reminder of the critical role of evidence in legal proceedings. Claimants are expected to provide consistent and verifiable documentation, including FIRs, medical reports, witness testimonies, and any other evidence that substantiates their case. The Tribunal’s decision reflects a commitment to a rigorous and evidence-based approach in determining liability and quantum of compensation in motor accident cases.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
