Preponderance Of Probability & Not Strict Principles Of Proof Like In Criminal Case Applicable In Motor Accident Claims: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that the strict principles of proof in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and that standard to be followed in motor accident claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. A bench of Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul...
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently ruled that the strict principles of proof in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and that standard to be followed in motor accident claims is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
A bench of Justice Vinod Chaterjee Koul was hearing an appeal against an award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama in a Claim Petition whereby the Tribunal had directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.4,91,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization to the claimants/respondents, on the grounds made mention of therein.
The appellants impugned the award by stating that the appellant had been set ex parte by the Tribunal, followed by issuance of impugned ex parte Award against appellants and non-contesting respondents and even no summon or notice was served upon appellants.
Counsel for appellants submitted that the story alleged by respondents/claimants in their claim petition is totally false and that there was no proof produced before the Tribunal by claimant concerning rash, negligent and careless driving of offending tractor. He further submitted that no positive and admissible proof or evidence is on the file and that even no issue with regard to the fact that deceased was travelling in offending tractor was raised or settled. Learned counsel also avers that the findings recorded during investigation has not been brought on the record nor has been proved before the Tribunal.
Contesting the award the appellants also argued that there had been inconsistent and contradictory statements made by witnesses and the conduct of witness as an investigator officer also demonstrates that there is no positive and cogent evidence on the file.
Adjudicating upon the matter the bench noted that the perusal of the record reveals that although appellants were duly served yet they opted not to cause appearance to contest the claim petition before the Tribunal and, resultantly, the Tribunal rightly initiated ex parte proceedings against appellant and hence the contention of appellants of Tribunal having proceeded Ex -parte is totally baseless and misconceived.
Deliberating on the subject the bench also observed
"It is to be kept in mind that in a situation of present nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter and it was to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied in the matter relating to payment of compensation in a motor vehicle accident."
Buttressing the said position of Law the bench also found it necessary to record the observations of Supreme Court in Anita Sharma and others v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others (2021) wherein SC held that in claim cases, evidence is to be tested on preponderance of probability and principles of strict rule of evidence, proving a point beyond reasonable doubt, is not available in claim cases, which are adjudged under a benevolent provision contained in Motor Vehicles Act.
In view of above discussion, the instant appeal dismissed.
Case Title: Showkat Ahmad Bhat & others Vs Khazir Mohammad Bhat & others
Citation : 2022 Live Law (JKL) 112