Motor accident claims are determined on preponderance of probabilities, not criminal-trial standards.

The claimants, parents of deceased Karam Sai, filed a claim under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for his death in a tractor accident on 23 April 2017.

The deceased was alleged to have been removing gravel and stones from a road when the driver negligently moved the tractor, causing its rear wheel to run over him; he died while being taken to hospital.

The insurer denied liability, contending that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a tractor meant only for the driver and that the driver lacked a valid licence.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded ₹8,83,400 with interest at 6% per annum and held the driver, owner and insurer liable.

The Insurance Company appealed against the award, challenging the computation of compensation and its liability.

Whether the deceased died due to the negligent driving of the insured tractor and whether the insurer could avoid liability on the ground that he was a gratuitous passenger or that the policy conditions were violated?

Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s income, future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, multiplier and conventional heads of compensation?

Whether the deceased was proved to be a bachelor so as to justify a 50% deduction towards personal and living expenses?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents.

It held that proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and that strict criminal-trial standards of proof do not apply, relying on Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171, and Bimla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530.

An FIR is not substantive evidence and cannot alone conclusively establish the manner of the accident.

For compensation, the Court applied National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, adding 40% towards future prospects, and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, applying a one-third deduction where there were two dependants and a multiplier of 18 for a deceased aged 20 years.

Although the FIR suggested that the deceased fell from the tractor, the eyewitness, Satyadev Gupta, testified that the deceased was clearing stones from the road and was run over when the driver moved the tractor forward.

The Court preferred the credible eyewitness account, observing that the FIR was not substantive evidence and that the claimants needed only to establish their case on a balance of probabilities.

The Court found no material demonstrating breach of the insurance policy or sufficient basis to treat the deceased as an excluded gratuitous passenger; consequently, the insurer’s liability was not displaced.

Since no reliable evidence established that the deceased was a bachelor, the Court upheld the one-third deduction applicable in view of the two dependants rather than the insurer’s proposed 50% deduction.

On the basis of a monthly income of ₹4,000, 40% future prospects, a multiplier of 18, and the applicable conventional amounts, the Court affirmed the total compensation of ₹8,83,400.

The Insurance Company’s appeal was dismissed, and the award of ₹8,83,400 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until payment was upheld.