Standard of proof in motor accident claims is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On March 28, 2018, Shiv Charan, a bus conductor, died after falling from a bus and being run over by its rear tyre when the driver (Respondent No. 1) allegedly took a sharp turn and applied sudden brakes

The appellants, being legal heirs, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act, 1988

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) concluded that rash and negligent driving was not proved, dismissed the eye-witness testimonies as unreliable or "procured," and *suo moto* converted the petition into one under Section 163A (no-fault liability), awarding a fixed sum of Rs. 5,00,000

The appellants challenged this conversion and the finding on negligence.

Whether the MACT erred in *suo moto* treating a petition filed under Section 166 as one under Section 163A of the MV Act without an application by the claimants

Whether the evidence on record, including testimonies of eye-witnesses and the FIR, established rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver

The Court primarily applied Section 166 (claim based on negligence) and Section 163A (claim based on no-fault liability) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in *Bimla Devi v. Himachal RTC (2009)* and *Geeta Dubey v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2024)*, which established that in motor accident claims, negligence must be proven on the touchstone of "preponderance of probabilities" rather than the stricter criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt"

The High Court found that the MACT’s dismissal of eye-witness testimonies was unwarranted.

It noted that PW3 (Irshad) provided a consistent narrative in the FIR and court, and his location at a roadside shop offered an excellent "vantage point" to witness the accident

The Court rejected the Insurance Company's argument that Irshad was a "planted" witness simply because he was dealing with customers, noting it is natural for a shopkeeper to witness external events while working

Furthermore, the testimony of PW4 (Ashok Solanki) corroborated Irshad’s account regarding the sharp turn and the PCR call

The Court observed that the Investigating Officer (PW2) confirmed the arrest of the driver and the preparation of the site plan based on these witnesses

Applying the "preponderance of probabilities" standard, the Court held that the consistent testimonies, the site plan, and the owner’s identification of the driver collectively proved negligence

It ruled that the MACT was incorrect to treat the matter under Section 163A.

The High Court remanded the matter back to the MACT for a fresh determination of compensation under Section 166 based on the dependency loss

The parties were directed to appear before the MACT on March 10, 2026