Claim petitions under welfare legislation must be decided on preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On May 21, 2004, the original claimant was allegedly knocked down by a lorry (WB-41-3999) after alighting from a rickshaw, resulting in traumatic paraplegia and permanent disability.

He filed a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed the petition in 2007, finding a failure to prove that injuries were caused by the alleged accident.

The High Court of Calcutta affirmed this dismissal in 2022, citing "glaring" discrepancies in records, such as an MRI report mentioning a "fall from lorry" and a slight variation in the vehicle registration number in oral testimony.

The original claimant died during pendency and is represented by his legal heirs.

The Court applied Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, noting that it provides a "no-fault" liability framework where negligence need not be proved.

It relied on Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Sunita v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, establishing that claim petitions must be decided on the "touchstone of preponderance of probability" rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It further referred to U.P. SRTC v. Trilok Chandra regarding defects in the Second Schedule and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. DTC regarding the calculation of "just compensation" and future prospects.

The Court reasoned that the High Court and Tribunal erred by adopting a "hyper-technical approach".

It held that medical history in emergency reports (e.g., "fall from lorry") is often based on attendant hearsay and cannot displace consistent documentary evidence like the FIR and chargesheet.

Similarly, minor delays in FIRs are natural in grievous injury cases where medical treatment is the priority.

The Court clarified that a witness's inability to recall a precise registration number years later does not outweigh consistent police records.

It emphasized that in summary proceedings, courts must differentiate between contradictions that render an accident improbable and those reflecting mere human or clerical imperfections.

Finding that the accident was established on a balance of probabilities, the Court determined that the 100% disability justified a move beyond the restrictive "structured formula" of the old Section 163A to provide effective relief.

It held that the claimant established the accident on the balance of probabilities and that the 20-year delay necessitated finality.

Relying on Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure substantial justice, the Court awarded "just compensation" based on Section 166 principles.

The Respondent-Insurer was directed to deposit Rs. 14,90,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing before the MACT for release to the legal representatives.