Motor Accidents | 'No Negligence' Finding In Final Report Has No Bearing On Claim Petition As Standard Of Proof Is Different: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that while considering a petition for compensation for death or injury in a road accident the standard of proof compensation for death or injury in a road accident the standard of proof to be applied by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt would not apply. It also observed that the final report in the criminal investigation connected to the accident would not have a bearing on the claim petition and that the claim petition must be considered on its own merits.

A division bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed

“A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. “

In this connection, the bench referred to various precedents which hold that the acquittal in the criminal case over the vehicle accident will not influence the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal against the order of the Kerala High Court that quashed a final report that said that the motor accident in question was an ‘unavoidable accident’ and was not attributable to negligence of the Appellant’s son.

The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant’s son and five others travelling in a car died on collision with a truck. The Appellant had also approached the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal and sought compensation for the death of his son on account of negligence on the part of the tanker lorry driver involved in the accident. Claim petitions have been filed by Respondent No.1 and other legal representatives of the deceased passengers in the car as well.

A chargesheet pertaining to an FIR filed against the appellant’s son, stated that the charges against the him had abated as he died in the accident. However, a further investigation was ordered and in the final report by the Assistant Commissioner of Police it was stated that incident was an unavoidable accident, not attributable to negligence on the part of the Appellant’s son.

Aggrieved by the final report terming the accident unavoidable, the Respondent No.1 approached the Kerala High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the report. The High Court quashed the report holding that “The incident is attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the Alto car”.

Holding that the claim petitions need to be considered on their own merits the Top Court observed:

“Insofar as the claim petition filed by the Appellant herein is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim petitions filed by the Appellant herein or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as the case may be, in causing the accident. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits.”

The Apex Court however set aside the order of the High Court on the ground that the reasons expressed by the High Court are in the nature of findings which were entered in excess of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

“The opinions expressed which are in the nature of findings while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on a further investigation of the case and thereby quashing the same is, in our view, not a correct and proper approach adopted by the High Court. Hence, the impugned order of the High Court is liable to be set aside on this short ground alone” the Court stated in its order.

Case Details: Mathew Alexander V. Mohammed Shafi, Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2023

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531

Click Here To Read/Download Order