Motor accident claims require proof on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

On 16 October 2023, Aman Kumar, aged approximately 13 years, was travelling on a motorcycle when he was allegedly hit by a highway tanker bearing registration No. CG-12-C-3365, driven at high speed and negligently by respondent No. 5, Develal Dhanwar. Aman Kumar sustained serious injuries and died as a result of the accident.

An FIR was initially registered on 17 October 2023 against an unknown vehicle; the tanker was seized on 6 December 2023, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed against its driver.

The deceased’s parents, brother and grandmother filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, awarded compensation of ₹12,20,000 with interest at 7% per annum and held the appellant-insurer liable to satisfy the award.

The insurer challenged the award under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the tanker had been falsely implicated, that the FIR referred to an unknown vehicle, that the tanker was seized after approximately 50 days, and that the eyewitnesses had not been examined by the police.

1. Whether the evidence on record established, on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, that the insured tanker was involved in the accident and that its driver drove negligently?

2. Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the appellant-insurer despite the initial FIR being against an unknown vehicle and the insured vehicle being seized after approximately 50 days?

3. Whether the compensation award of ₹12,20,000 with 7% annual interest required interference in appeal?

The Court applied Sections 166 and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166 provides the mechanism for claiming compensation arising from a motor accident, while Section 173 permits an appeal against the Tribunal’s award.

It held that motor accident claims are adjudicated on the civil standard of preponderance of probabilities, and not on the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, relying on Geeta Dubey v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779.

It further relied on Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, for the principle that the FIR, charge-sheet and other police records may constitute prima facie evidence of the accident, vehicle involvement and driver’s negligence, and that the party denying such involvement must effectively rebut their evidentiary effect.

Relying on Meera Bai v. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 992, the Court held that the absence of an eyewitness in the police record is not, by itself, sufficient to reject a motor accident claim where the accident and negligence can reasonably be inferred from the FIR, charge-sheet and other official records.

The Court found that the claimants examined Kanta Prasad Singh, an eyewitness, who expressly stated that the tanker was driven at high speed and negligently, causing the accident and the death of Aman Kumar.

Although the witness had not given a statement to the police, he consistently deposed that he had seen the accident and had informed the police, ambulance service and the deceased’s family immediately thereafter; his material testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination.

The police investigation culminated in a charge-sheet against the tanker driver, and the final report recorded the involvement of the tanker.

The Court held that the insurer’s witnesses merely relied upon the contents of police documents and did not provide substantive evidence disproving the tanker’s involvement.

Applying the test of preponderance of probabilities, the Court concluded that the eyewitness account, supported by the charge-sheet and other records, was sufficient to establish the vehicle’s involvement and negligent driving.

The initial reference to an unknown vehicle and the delay in seizure did not outweigh this evidence, particularly because the insurer failed to rebut the claimants’ evidence effectively.

The evidence established, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the insured tanker was involved in the accident and that its driver’s rash and negligent driving caused Aman Kumar’s death.

The Tribunal’s award of ₹12,20,000 with 7% annual interest and the direction fastening liability upon the appellant-insurer were upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s record was directed to be returned for necessary compliance.