Strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases -- Standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt -- One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eye-witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true.

(SC) Decided on: 08.12.2020

Standard of proof -- In motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties -- 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.

(SC) Decided on: 14.02.2019

Acquittal in criminal case – Effect of -- Standard of proof in the criminal case and the claim case is entirely different -- Findings in the claim case/civil case is to be recorded on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, whereas in the criminal case the prosecution has to prove the charge to the hilt i.e. by eliminating the possibility of any doubt which may arise in favour of the accused -- Issue regarding negligence is to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties in the case -- Subsequent acquittal of respondent-driver is no ground to upset the findings of the issue of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 27.04.2016