Motor accident claims cases should be decided based on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering a claim petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a motor accident case[Mathew Alexander v. Mohd. Shafi and Another]..A division bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra was of the view that the claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt."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," the Court said..The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a decision of the Kerala High Court which had quashed the final report in a motor accident case, observing that the incident which occurred was an unavoidable accident, and not attributable to negligence on the part of appellant's son..As per the facts of the case, on January 1, 2015, the appellant's son was driving an Alto car through the Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram National Highway on the left side of the road, along with his friends. A gas tanker lorry driven by Ramar in an utmost rash and negligent manner, hit the car and the appellant’s son and five others in the car died.A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against appellant's son under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code 1860. Claim petitions were filed by the respondent and the legal representatives of the deceased passengers before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) seeking compensation for the death of their kin. Appellant's deceased son was also one of the respondents in the claim petition. The appellant has also filed claim petition against the owner and driver of the tanker lorry which collided with the Alto car driven by his son.On January 27, 2016, a final report was filed in the case by the Assistant Commissioner of Police stating that the charges against the appellant's son stood abated on account of his death. However, a further investigation was conducted and another final report was filed on November 29, 2019, where it was stated that the incident was an unavoidable accident, not attributable to negligence on the part of the appellant’s son.After two years from the date of final report, the respondent moved the High Court seeking quashing of the final report. On March 31, 2022, the High Court allowed the plea and quashed the report. Aggrieved, the appellant moved the present appeal before the apex court..The Supreme Court noted that the High Court in its decision has made observations which were in the nature of findings which were unnecessary for deciding the correctness of the report. "The observations of the High Court to the effect that the car driven by the Appellant’s son, Nixon Abey Mathew, was being driven rashly; that the car had gone astray to the wrong side; that the possibility that the driver of the car had driven the car after consuming alcohol cannot be ruled out; that rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the car is patent and that this is a clear case in which the principle of res ispa loquitor applies, are in the nature of findings which were wholly unnecessary to be made while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on further investigation of the case."Such an approach adopted by the High Court was incorrect, the Court opined.For the above reasons, the Court has allowed the appeal and has set aside the decision of the High Court.Regarding the claim petitions filed, the Court made it clear that the same 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 Court observed..[Read Judgment]