Families seeking compensation after a death involving a vehicle must show more than the vehicle’s presence in the chain of events, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The claimant must establish a credible connection between the vehicle’s use and the death or injury. However, that does not always mean proving the driver was negligent. The exact requirements depend on the provision under which the accident claim is filed.

A legal clarification is also necessary. Although people often search for the motor vehicle accident claims act, India’s governing central law is officially called the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The abbreviation MVA refers to this law, while the frequently used phrase “MVA Act” is technically repetitive.

What the Supreme Court Case Was About

The ruling came in Dilip Agarwal v Rajshri Agarwal and Others, decided on July 22, 2026. A man named Anand had entered a car driven by a person known to him. He was found dead three days later. His family claimed that his death arose from the use of the vehicle and sought compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court accepted the claim. The Supreme Court, however, found no forensic or other credible evidence connecting the car with the injuries or death. It therefore set aside the compensation findings, although it directed that any amount already paid should not be recovered from the family.

Why the Link With the Vehicle Matters

Motor Accident Claims Tribunals can consider claims involving death, bodily injury or third-party property damage arising from the use of a motor vehicle. This does not mean that every death occurring inside or around a vehicle qualifies for compensation. The Court said the phrase “arising out of the use of a motor vehicle” requires a causal connection. Claimants do not always need strict proof of the precise manner in which the incident occurred, but they must produce some credible evidence linking the vehicle’s use with the injury or death. The standard is the civil test of preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. A criminal acquittal therefore does not automatically defeat an MVA compensation claim.

Current No-Fault Compensation Under Section 164

Section 164 is the current no-fault compensation provision. It makes the vehicle owner or authorised insurer liable to pay:

• -₹5 lakh in the event of death
• -₹2.5 lakh in the event of grievous hurt

Under this route, the claimant does not need to establish that the incident resulted from a wrongful act, negligence or default by the driver, vehicle owner or another person. However, the death or grievous hurt must still arise from an accident connected with the use of a motor vehicle. A no-fault claim removes the need to prove blame; it does not remove the requirement to establish the vehicle-related nexus.

Why Section 140 Should Be Removed From the Draft

The earlier Section 140 provided ₹50,000 for death and ₹25,000 for permanent disablement without requiring proof of fault.

However, Section 140 and the entire former Chapter X were omitted from April 1, 2022, following the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019. Those amounts are therefore historical and should not be presented as the current compensation available for a new claim. Section 164 now performs the principal statutory no-fault role, with substantially higher fixed amounts.

How a Section 166 Claim Works

Section 166 allows an injured person, the legal representatives of someone who died, a property owner or an authorised agent to apply before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In a conventional road-crash case based on rash or negligent driving, claimants generally need to establish negligence. The evidence is assessed on the balance of probabilities rather than the stricter criminal-law standard. Unlike Section 164, Section 166 does not prescribe one fixed compensation amount. The Tribunal determines what appears to be “just compensation” after examining factors such as income, dependency, age, injuries, disability and relevant expenses.

Can Families Claim Under Both Routes?

The Act states that when a person accepts compensation under Section 164 through the Section 149 procedure, the claim petition pending before the Tribunal lapses.

Families should therefore not describe Section 164 merely as an interim payment that can always be added to a larger Section 166 award. The legal consequences of accepting the fixed payment must be examined before a choice is made.

What the Ruling Means for Accident Claims

The judgment does not say that every claimant must prove the driver’s fault.  Instead, it separates two questions:

-First, was the death or injury sufficiently connected with the use of the motor vehicle?

-Second, does the particular claim also require proof of negligence?

A Section 164 claimant does not have to prove negligence but must establish that the death or grievous hurt arose from the vehicle’s use. A conventional Section 166 claimant seeking fault-based compensation must generally establish negligence on the balance of probabilities. That is the key takeaway from the ruling. Under the law commonly searched as the motor vehicle accident claims act, the presence of a car is not enough by itself. There must be credible evidence connecting the vehicle’s use with the accident, injury or death.