Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Must Adjudicate On Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Seek Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that evidence in a Motor Accident Claim should be examined on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied.

The order was passed by Justice B.V. L.N. Chakravarthi in a Motor Accidents Claim Appeal wherein the Tribunal had dismissed the claim of the claimants for compensation of INR 10,00,000/- in a "casual and cryptic manner."

"...the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal ignored these circumstances, dealt with the issue very casually, decided the issue in a cryptic manner. This led to a perverse finding. He ignored basic legal principles of evidence that the learned Tribunal should examine the evidence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities in a claim. for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court," it held.

The appellants/ claimants who were the mother, two minor children and wife of the deceased had approached the High Court by way of appeal challenging the dismissal order of the Tribunal.

They contended that the deceased was employed as a mason and one day while he was coming back from work for lunch, an auto driving in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side of the road, hit the deceased's moped, causing an accident which led to his death. A case was registered, and upon investigation, the police concluded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Auto and booked the owner and driver under 304-A of the IPC.

The claimants contended that the deceased earned INR 250/- per day and pleaded to be compensated accordingly keeping the appropriate multiplier and future prospects in mind.

The Insurance Company claimed that the deceased was not wearing a helmet and hence they were not obligated to compensate the family of the deceased. The owner and driver of the auto remained ex parte.

The Tribunal while dismissing the application held that since the accident was a head-on collision it was difficult to determine who caused the accident with no eyewitnesses. Furthermore, since the scene observation report was prepared a day after the accident, it could not be relied upon to prove the guilt of either party.

When the matter was being heard by the High Court the bench noted that the driver and owner of the auto by remaining ex parte had neither challenged the version of the claimants nor the insurance company. The Bench also noted that the insurance company did not challenge the police report filed by the police and restricted their arguments to the extent that the deceased was not wearing a helmet.

The Bench further went on to state that when the scene observation report was analyzed, it would become apparent that the accident happened on the left side of the road, which was only possible if the driver of the auto was driving on the wrong side of the road, thus corroborating with the deposition of the claimants.

The Bench relying upon various decisions of the Apex Court concluded:

" In the light of the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments, Tribunals must take care to see that innocent victims do not suffer, and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. The culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is reasonable, and the Tribunal should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex The Tribunal shall take a holistic of place before it. The Tribunal while appreciating the evidence shall not forget the rule that the claimants to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. 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."

With this view in mind, the Court went on to award the claimants a sum of INR 16,62,000/- by holding that if the Court deems it fit and just, a compensation, higher than what was prayed for, can also be awarded.

The compensation amount is inclusive of INR 40,000/- to each child as loss of parental consortium, INR 40,000/- to the wife of the deceased as loss of spouse consortium, INR 15,000/- as funeral expenses and loss of estate each.

M.A.C.M.A 307 of 2015

Counsel for appellants: Challa Ajay Kumar

Counsel for respondent: Pampana Ravi Kumar

Click Here To Read/Download Order