Preponderance of probability determines driver identity and insurer liability in fatal motor accident claims.

The Appellant Insurance Company challenged a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award dated September 26, 2025, which held it liable for the death of Garv Sehgal.

The accident occurred when a Ford Eco Sport, owned by Mohan Jain and occupied by Garv Sehgal and Akshay Jain, collided with a Maruti Eeco.

The Insurance Company contended that the deceased, Garv Sehgal, was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and sought exoneration from liability.

However, the MACT found that Akshay Jain (the owner’s son) was the driver based on a "preponderance of probability".

The Appellant challenged this finding, relying on Akshay Jain’s evidence stating he had lost consciousness and that Garv Sehgal was driving.

1. Whether the Tribunal correctly identified Akshay Jain, rather than the deceased Garv Sehgal, as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.

2. Whether the Insurance Company could be partially exonerated from liability after having already accepted and discharged its liability regarding other victims of the same accident.

The Court applied the standard of "preponderance of probabilities," which serves as the applicable legal threshold for determining negligence and facts in motor accident claim cases.

The Court also implicitly relied on the principle of estoppel and consistency in insurance liability, noting that an insurer cannot selectively challenge liability for one victim while having already accepted it for others in the same occurrence.

The Court affirmed the MACT’s findings by analyzing the evidentiary record. First, it noted that CCTV footage from the start of the journey at Patparganj Industrial Area explicitly showed Akshay Jain in the driver’s seat.

The Court found it "unlikely" that the occupants would have switched drivers within the short distance between the starting point and the accident site.

Second, the Court highlighted that an FIR and charge-sheet had been filed against Akshay Jain, and these criminal proceedings remained unchallenged.

Third, the Court dismissed Akshay Jain’s testimony as unreliable, characterizing his initial statement to the police as a likely "state of panic" to avoid responsibility, which could not be controverted by the deceased.

Finally, the Court observed that the Appellant had already settled claims for the occupants of the other vehicle (Maruti Eeco), thereby precluding them from seeking partial exoneration regarding the death of Garv Sehgal.

The Court directed that the awarded compensation amount, including accrued interest, be released to the claimants as per the MACT’s original directions. The statutory deposit was ordered to be refunded to the Appellant.