Does the Supreme Court Require Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt in Motor Accident Claims?

Oct 17

2 min read

In a landmark judgment on October 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of India clarified the standard of proof applicable in motor accident claim cases. The Court ruled that the principle of preponderance of probabilities must be applied in such cases, as opposed to the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt typically used in criminal proceedings.

The case involved the family of a deceased motorcycle rider who had died in a road accident after colliding with a car while attempting to overtake a bus. The Respondents contested the claim, arguing that the car was not involved in the accident. Lower courts had supported this argument by disbelieving an eyewitness (PW-6) due to his omission from the police investigation as an official witness. However, the Supreme Court overturned these findings.

A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra emphasized that a reliable witness should not be discredited merely because their statement was not recorded during the police investigation. The Court found that sufficient evidence indicated the car's involvement in the accident. Notably, the Mahazar report detailed the damage to the car, including a broken front bumper and a damaged parking light, which aligned with the accident circumstances.

The judgment, authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, underscored that motor accident claims are civil in nature and should be assessed based on the likelihood of the event, not beyond reasonable doubt. The Court criticized the lower courts for misinterpreting the evidence and ruled that the accident indeed involved the insured car.

As a result, the Court awarded compensation to the claimants in the amount of ₹46,31,496 with 9% interest per annum, to be paid within three months. Failure to comply would increase the interest rate to 12% per annum.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder that civil cases, including motor accident claims, operate under different evidentiary standards than criminal cases, making justice more accessible to victims seeking compensation.