After a tragic accident on April 27, 2009, when Udayanath Sahoo lost his life after his motorcycle was hit from behind by a truck. The collision caused the motorcycle to crash into a tree, resulting in Sahoo’s death and serious injuries to his pillion rider. Sahoo’s family filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs 210.5 lakh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Nayagarh awarded them Rs 26.77 lakh with 7% annual interest.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on January 2, 2025, delivered a notable judgment explaining the “preponderance of probabilities” standard used in motor accident compensation cases.
A bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal dismissed an appeal by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., confirming the compensation awarded to the family of a deceased accident victim.
Background
After a tragic accident on April 27, 2009, when Udayanath Sahoo lost his life after his motorcycle was hit from behind by a truck. The collision caused the motorcycle to crash into a tree, resulting in Sahoo’s death and serious injuries to his pillion rider. Sahoo’s family filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs 210.5 lakh. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Nayagarh awarded them Rs 26.77 lakh with 7% annual interest.
The insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged the tribunal’s decision, arguing that the accident was due to the deceased’s negligence. The High Court of Orissa dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal’s findings. Subsequently, the matter reached the Supreme Court.
READ ALSO: ‘Summer Vacation’ Renamed As ‘Partial Court Working Days’ : Supreme Court
Key Legal Issues
- Standard of Proof in Negligence Claims: The insurer argued that the tribunal relied heavily on police documents, like the FIR and chargesheet, to conclude negligence.
- Admissibility of Police Reports: The appellant alleged that these documents were manipulated by the claimants.
- Assessment of Negligence: The court examined whether the tribunal had correctly assessed negligence based on the evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court highlighted that claims in motor accident cases are decided based on the “preponderance of probabilities,” a civil standard of proof that requires showing that one version of events is more likely true than not.
The court referenced prior decisions, including Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, to support its reasoning.
The court stated:
“Strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. A holistic view of the evidence must be taken into account, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not apply in motor accident cases.”
Rejecting the insurer’s allegations of fraud, the court noted there was no credible evidence to challenge the tribunal’s findings. It further observed:
“In the context of motor accident claims, police reports and investigative findings serve as legitimate evidence when considered alongside other materials. There is no bar to their admissibility in determining negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act.”
The bench emphasized the importance of taking a comprehensive view of all evidence, including police documents like the FIR and chargesheet. These documents suggested that the truck driver was responsible for rash and negligent driving.
The Supreme Court upheld the compensation awarded by the lower courts, stating that their conclusions were based on sufficient evidence. The bench dismissed the appeal by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., reinforcing the principle that motor accident claims do not require strict proof akin to criminal cases.
Case Details
- Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajani Sahoo & Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 29302 of 2019
- Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
