The Supreme Court has recently issued a judgment emphasizing that a claim petition seeking compensation for death or injury in a motor accident case should be established on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, rather than the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's decision came during the hearing of an appeal challenging a ruling by the Kerala High Court, which had quashed a final report in a motor accident case on the grounds that the incident was an unavoidable accident and not attributable to negligence on the part of the appellant's son.
Brief Facts:
The case in question revolved around a tragic accident that occurred on January 1, 2015, on the Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram National Highway. The appellant's son was driving an Alto car with his friends when a gas tanker lorry, driven by Ramar in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the car, resulting in the death of the appellant's son and five others. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the appellant's son under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
Claim petitions seeking compensation were filed by the respondent and the legal representatives of the deceased passengers before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). The appellant also filed a claim petition against the owner and driver of the tanker lorry involved in the accident. Initially, a final report was filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police stating that the charges against the appellant's son stood abated due to his death. However, further investigation led to the submission of another final report, stating that the incident was an unavoidable accident and not a result of negligence on the part of the appellant's son.
After two years, the respondent approached the High Court, seeking to quash the final report. On March 31, 2022, the High Court granted the plea and quashed the report. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Observations by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's decision contained unnecessary findings that were irrelevant to determining the correctness of the final report. The Court emphasized that the High Court's approach, making observations on the rashness, negligence, and potential alcohol consumption of the appellant's son, was incorrect. As a result, the Court set aside the High Court's decision.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that claim petitions should be considered based on preponderance of probabilities, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. It placed the burden on the claimants to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry, or the pickup van involved in the accident. The Court emphasized that the claim petitions should be assessed on their own merits, disregarding the final report of the criminal investigation.
The Supreme Court's decision aligns with previous precedents that state an acquittal in a criminal case related to a road accident does not impact the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court highlighted that a holistic view of the evidence should be taken into consideration by the Tribunal, and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner is not required.
Case Name: Mathew Alexander V. Mohammed Shafi
Coram: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 563 SC
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: Advocate Jishnu M L with Advocate on Record G. Prakash
Advocates of the Respondent: AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker and A. Karthik, Advs.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
