In Brief
A 34-year-old sales officer died from injuries sustained in a car accident caused by alleged rash driving. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation, but the High Court reversed this, doubting the credibility of the sole eye-witness because hospital records attributed the victim's arrival to police rather than the witness. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that motor accident cases apply the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, not criminal proof standards. The eye-witness's unchallenged testimony deserved weight; his failure to report to police or appear in hospital records was natural for a Good Samaritan. The FIR was unreliable, being hearsay and potentially influenced. The Court reinstated the Tribunal's award, added 40% for future prospects, and ordered interest at 8.5% from the insurer.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.