Keywords: Motor accident claims tribunal, Assistant Commissioner Police Officer, Abated, preponderance of probabilities, compensation, road traffic accident .
Appellant was aggrieved by the order of the High Court which quashed the final report of the Police officer. A complaint was registered against the Appellants son invoking Section 279, 304A of the IPC. Appellant’s son’s car collided with the tanker lorry. Appellant’s son and his friends died. A claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kollam for compensation of death.
A final report was filed by Assistant Commissioner Police. The charge sheet against the Appellant’s son had abated. This was because the accident was unavoidable. The officer further submitted that the accident was unavoidable and submitted to JMFC. Later a petition was filed before Kerala High Court to quash the final report. High Court allowed the petition and quashed the final report. Later Appeal was proffered in the Supreme Court which was allowed by the same. The court was of the opinion that,
A division bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard matter and made the following observations:
“A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. “
Name: Manaswini Datar, Karnataka State Law University , Semester 8th
0 Comments