In motorcycle accident claims, the preponderance of probability must be applied; No proof beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court noted on Thursday (October 17) that in motorcycle accident claims, the courts must apply the principle of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

As you observe this, the bank consists of Justices CT Ravikumar and Prashant Kumar Mishra has granted the claim for damages for motorcycle accident of the relatives of the cyclist who died in a traffic accident after colliding with a car coming from the opposite direction while attempting to overtake a bus.

The claim petition of the appellant was challenged by the respondents on the ground that the car was not involved in the accident and the courts below recorded the finding of non-involvement of the car in the accident by the eye witness (PW 6) can only be believed because he was not interviewed as an eyewitness during the police investigation.

PW-6 was presented as an eyewitness of the accident. He had seen the motorcycle overtake the bus and that is when the car hit the motorcycle. The car drove forward a bit and stopped and the injured person was taken to hospital in the same car that hit him. This witness has remained steadfast in cross-examination.

With the decision of the Supreme Court set aside, the judgment written by Justice Mishra thought so “A witness who is otherwise found to be reliable cannot be disbelieved in a car accident case on the grounds that the police did not record his statement during the investigation.”

“There is a plethora of evidence pointing to the fact that the car was involved in the accident and the courts below have failed to consider the evidence in its true perspective and have misled themselves by recording perverse findings regarding its non-involvement of the car in the accident. ”the court noted.

“In damage cases arising from a motorcycle accident, the court must apply the principles of preponderance of probability and cannot apply the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The available evidence in the present case, when tested on the principles of preponderance of probability, can contain only one finding that the car was involved in the accident, otherwise the damage found on the car in the Mahazar (Annexure P-2) , not possible. The Mahazar clearly states that the right front bumper of the car is broken, the right front parking light is broken and the grill above the front bumper is bent. With such damage to the front of the car’s body, it is impossible to determine that the car was not involved in the accident.”the court added.

The court therefore upheld the appeal and ruled as follows:

“In the light of the evidence before us, we have set aside the finding of the courts below that the car was not involved in the accident, with the result that the deceased died as a result of an accident involving the car insured with the defendant No. 3. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and order of the courts below and allow the claim petition to award damages to the appellants of Rs. 46,31,496/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim till realization of payment which will be made within three months from today. Failing this, the amount awarded will bear interest @ 12% per annum.”

appearances:

For petitioner(s) Mr. Thomas P. Joseph, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Mr. Dinny Thomas, Adv. Mrs. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv.

For respondent(s) Mr. Atul Nanda, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Rameeza Hakeem, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR

Case title: Sajeena Ikhbal & Ors. Versus Mini Babu George & Ors., CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7881 OF 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 810

Click here to read/download the judgment