In Motor Accident Claims, Preponderance Of Probabilities Must Be Applied; Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (Oct. 17) observed that in motor accident claim cases, the courts must apply the principle of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

While observing so, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra allowed the motor accident compensation claim of the kin of the bike rider who was killed in a road accident after a collision with a car coming in the opposite direction in an attempt to overtake a bus.

The Appellant's claim petition was contested by the Respondents on the ground that the car was not involved in the accident, and the courts below have recorded the finding of non-involvement of the car in the accident by disbelieving the eyewitness (PW 6) only on the ground that in the police investigation, he was not examined as an eyewitness.

PW-6 was presented as an eyewitness to the accident. He had seen the motorcycle overtaking the bus and at that time the car hit the motorcycle. The car forwarded a little and stopped and the injured was taken to the hospital in the same car which hit him. This witness has remained firm in the cross-examination.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra opined that “a witness who is otherwise found trustworthy cannot be disbelieved, in a motor accident case, only on the ground that the police have not recorded his statement during investigation.”

“There is an abundance of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have not considered the evidence in true perspective and have misguided themselves to record perverse finding regarding non-involvement of the car in the accident.”, the court observed.

“In claim cases, arising out of motor accident, the court has to apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence available in the present case tested on the principles of preponderance of probability can record only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise, the damage found to the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) was not possible. The Mahazar clearly records that the front bumper right side of the car is broken, front right parking light is broken, the grill fitted above the front bumper is curved. With such damages to the front side of the body of the car, it is impossible to record a finding that the car was not involved in the accident.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and ordered as follows:

“In the light of the evidence on record, we set aside the finding of the courts below that the car was not involved in the accident, resultantly, holding that the deceased died as a result of accident involving the car insured with respondent no. 3. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the courts below and allow the claim petition to award compensation to the appellants at Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the payment, which shall be made within three months from today, failing which, the award amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum.”

Appearances:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Thomas P Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Mr. Dinny Thomas, Adv. Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rameeza Hakeem, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR

Case Title: Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. Versus Mini Babu George & Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7881 OF 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Click here to read/download the judgment