Standard Of Proof In MACT Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities; Courts Cannot Discard Eyewitness For Photos Taken 10 Hours After Accident: Supreme Court

"The standard of proof in proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is one of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal trials. The Tribunal is not a criminal Court and must not import the stringency of the criminal standard while evaluating civil liability." Supreme Court, in a significant judgment dated July 13, 2026, has clarified that motor accident claim proceedings must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities rather than the strict criminal law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that Tribunals must appreciate evidence in a pragmatic manner, keeping in view the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court held that concurrent findings of the High Court and the Tribunal were perverse as they relied on private photographs taken hours after the incident while discarding the testimony of a credible injured eyewitness.

The primary question before the court was whether the lower courts were justified in holding the driver of the Maruti Car solely responsible for the accident and consequently denying compensation. The Court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary weight of private photographs taken significantly after the occurrence of an accident as against the testimony of a surviving injured eyewitness.

Standard Of Proof In Accident Claim Proceedings

The Court began by reiterating the well-settled legal position that the standard of proof in proceedings before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is one of preponderance of probabilities. Citing precedents like Sithara N.S. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited and Prabhavathi v. The Managing Director, BMTC, the bench emphasized that strict rules of evidence used in criminal trials do not apply to compensation cases. The Court noted that once the foundational fact of the accident's occurrence is established, the Tribunal’s primary role is to calculate just compensation based on the probability of negligence.

"The standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."

Credibility Of Injured Eyewitness vs. Private Photographs

The Court found that the lower courts committed a serious error by placing decisive reliance on photographs marked as Exhibits 3 and 4 while discarding the testimony of PW-2, Dr. Dileep Kumar Katiyar. The bench observed that PW-2 was the sole surviving injured eyewitness whose presence at the spot was undisputed. As an injured witness, his testimony carried greater evidentiary value and categorically stated that the Maruti car was on its correct side when hit by the speeding tanker.

"Being an injured witness, his testimony carries greater evidentiary value and ordinarily deserves due weight unless strong reasons exist for discarding it."

Suspect Nature Of Evidence Produced By Tanker Owner

Regarding the photographs, the Court noted that they were not taken by the police as part of an official investigation but were prepared and developed by the owner of the tanker himself. Crucially, the photographs were taken nearly ten to twelve hours after the accident occurred at 10:00 p.m. the previous night. The bench held that such photographs cannot be treated as an accurate representation of the position of the vehicles at the time of impact, as the scene could have been altered during the intervening period.

"The circumstances in which the photographs were taken and produced render them inherently suspect and incapable of forming the sole basis for determining negligence."

Adverse Inference From Non-Production Of Material Witness

The Court highlighted that the defense version rested on the assertion that the tanker was stationary because its conductor had gone to attend a call of nature. However, the conductor was never produced before the Tribunal, and no explanation was offered for his absence. The bench ruled that an adverse inference must be drawn against the respondents for withholding the best available evidence, further diminishing the trustworthiness of their version.

Negligence In Parking Heavy Vehicles On Public Roads At Night

The Court observed that even if the tanker was stationary, the respondents failed to show that it was parked with due care and caution. The accident occurred at night in January, yet there was no evidence that the tanker had switched on parking lights, hazard indicators, or placed reflective signs. The bench held that parking a heavy vehicle on a public road at night without adequate warning signals constitutes negligence in itself as it creates a foreseeable risk to other road users.

Application Of The Principle Of Res Ipsa Loquitur

The bench invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), stating that once it is shown that a heavy vehicle was left standing on the roadway at night without warning signs and a collision occurred, the burden shifts to the respondents. The Court found that the tanker owner and driver failed to discharge the burden of proving that all reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such a collision.

"Once it is shown that a heavy vehicle was left standing on the roadway at night without adequate warning signs and a collision occurred, the burden shifts upon the respondents to establish that all reasonable precautions had been taken."

The Supreme Court concluded that the concurrent findings of the Tribunal and the High Court were perverse and unsustainable in law. It held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker driver, especially given that a charge-sheet had also been filed against him under Sections 279, 338, and 304A of the IPC. Setting aside the previous orders, the Court awarded total compensation amounts including interest to the claimants, ranging from approximately Rs. 35 Lakhs to Rs. 65 Lakhs across the three appeals, to be satisfied by the respondent Insurance Company within eight weeks.

Date of Decision: July 13, 2026