Case at a Glance
A man last seen travelling in his friend’s car was found dead a few days later. The friend was convicted of murder by the trial court but acquitted by the High Court. In a parallel claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal and the High Court held the death to be one arising out of the use of the motor vehicle and awarded compensation. The Supreme Court set aside both awards, holding that even on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, “Some link whatsoever between the car, and the death has to be established” — and none was. Compensation already paid, however, is not to be recovered.
On 29 November 2009, Anand travelled in a vehicle driven by his friend, the appellant Dilip. On 3 December 2009 his body was found near Binjkot village. His wife lodged FIR No. 963 of 2009 at P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh, and the chargesheet alleged a conspiracy among three accused to kidnap and kill him. The trial court convicted Dilip on 30 November 2012 under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120B IPC, but on 18 November 2015 the High Court acquitted him, holding that the ‘last seen’ theory was not proved.
Separately, the widow and three children filed Claim Case No. 37 of 2011 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Fourth Additional MACT, Raigarh, claiming about ₹26,00,000. The Tribunal found that rash or negligent driving was not proved, but held that the death fell under Sections 165 and 166 because the injuries were inflicted in the vehicle, and treated Dilip’s failure to deny the claimants’ version as acceptance. It awarded ₹5,64,000 with 7% interest; the High Court affirmed and enhanced the award to ₹8,60,832.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a death arise ‘out of the use of a motor vehicle’ merely because the deceased was last seen travelling in the vehicle, when no causal link between the car and the death is established?
‘Arising Out Of’ Is Wider Than ‘Caused By’ — But Not Limitless
Relying on Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar, (2026) 06 SC CK 0539 and Shivaji Dayanu Patil v. Vatschala Uttam More, (1991) 07 SC CK 0003, the Court explained that ‘arising out of’ denotes a less proximate link than ‘caused by’, but it is still a causal connection. It also referred to Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2000) 04 SC CK 0144 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 01 SC CK 0013. MACT proceedings are decided on preponderance of probabilities, a lower standard than criminal proof, as recognised in Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC, (2009) 04 SC CK 0030, Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi, (2023) 07 SC CK 0032 and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SC CK 0031.
Even on that lower standard, the Court found no causal link. There was no forensic evidence from the car, the car was not involved in any collision, and the injuries were caused by hard, blunt objects. While claimants are not required to prove the exact manner in which the injuries were caused, the Court held that “Some link whatsoever between the car, and the death has to be established.” Without it, the death could not be said to arise out of the use of the motor vehicle, and the awards of the Tribunal and the High Court could not stand.
What the Court Actually Held
- A claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires that the death or injury arise out of the use of a motor vehicle; ‘arising out of’ is wider than ‘caused by’ but still requires a causal connection.
- The civil standard of preponderance of probabilities applies, but some link between the vehicle and the death must still be established.
- On the evidence — no forensic material from the car, no collision, and blunt-object injuries — no such link was proved, so the Tribunal and High Court judgments were set aside.
- Compensation already paid to the claimants shall not be subjected to any recovery; the appeals were allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It draws a clear line between road-accident claims and deaths that merely occur in proximity to a vehicle.
- It clarifies that the relaxed MACT standard of proof does not dispense with proof of a causal link.
- It shows the Court protecting claimants from recovery even while setting aside an award.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants
- Even in MACT, you must show some connection between the vehicle’s use and the death or injury — proximity alone is not enough.
- Collect evidence such as forensic reports, site inspection and mechanical reports that tie the vehicle to the incident.
- An acquittal in the criminal case does not by itself decide the MACT claim, but the evidence led there may matter.
For Counsel
- Plead and prove the causal chain between the vehicle’s use and the injuries, relying on Shivaji Dayanu Patil for the wider meaning of ‘arising out of’.
- For respondents, test the claim for absence of collision, forensic evidence or vehicle involvement.
- Where an award is reversed, seek a direction against recovery of sums already paid, as granted here.
Key Takeaways
- ‘Arising out of the use of a motor vehicle’ needs a causal link, though less direct than ‘caused by’.
- Preponderance of probabilities applies in MACT, but some link must still be proved.
- A death after travelling in a car is not automatically a motor accident claim.
- Amounts already paid were protected from recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can compensation be claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act for a murder committed in a car?
This judgment holds that the claimant must establish some link between the car and the death; where no causal connection with the vehicle’s use is shown, the claim under Section 166 fails.
Does the claimant have to prove exactly how the injuries happened?
No. The Court said claimants need not prove the exact manner of injury, but some link between the vehicle and the death has to be established.
Will the family have to refund the compensation already received?
No. The Supreme Court directed that compensation, if already paid, shall not be subjected to any recovery.
Conclusion
Dilip Agarwal v. Rajshri Agarwal keeps the Motor Vehicles Act’s compensation scheme anchored to its purpose — injuries and deaths connected with the use of vehicles. The beneficial, lower standard of proof in MACT helps claimants, but it cannot replace the basic requirement of a causal link.
Practical takeaway: Before filing a Section 166 claim in an unusual death, assemble evidence that ties the vehicle’s use to the death; without it, the claim may fail even if the Tribunal is sympathetic.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com