1. Claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained as pedestrian hit by motorcycle. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 476
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RAJESH RAI K., J.
Mr. Venkatachalaiah K. @ Venkatachala K., S/o. Kenchaiah - Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.4349 of 2022(MV-I)
Decided On : 01-09-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Girimallaiah.
For the Respondent: Sri. Sanmathi E.I.
For the Appellant : Sri. Girimallaiah.
For the Respondent: Sri. Sanmathi E.I.
Important Points
Motor accident claims are adjudicated on the preponderance of probabilities. A claim cannot be dismissed based on a case sheet entry if primary documents, such as the MLC register and police reports, substantiate the claimant's version of the accident.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT: S.166
Headnote
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation - Standard of proof - Preponderance of probabilities - A claim petition cannot be rejected solely relying on a case sheet or accident form entry (e.g., mentioning the claimant as a driver) when primary documents such as the MLC register and police intimation clearly reveal the claimant was a pedestrian. Such entries in case sheets, potentially authored by PG students, do not override primary medical and investigation records. (Paras 12, 13, 14)
(B) Standard of Proof - Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be adjudicated on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Strict proof of the manner of the accident may not always be possible for claimants. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained when a motorcycle hit him while he was walking as a pedestrian. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition primarily because a hospital accident form indicated the claimant was a driver and was not wearing a helmet. However, the MLC register and the intimation sent to the police by the hospital recorded the claimant as a pedestrian. The claimant appealed against the dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the MLC register and police intimation were primary documents that substantiated the claimant's version. The entry in the case sheet was likely written by PG students and lacked sufficient evidentiary value to discard the entire case. The Tribunal's dismissal was based on hyper-technical reasons not applicable to motor accident claims.
Issues: Whether the claim petition could be dismissed based on a contradictory entry in a hospital case sheet despite supporting evidence in the MLC register and police records, and the determination of just compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. Primary documents like the MLC register and police investigation reports take precedence over secondary case sheet entries, especially when the latter are authored by junior staff or students.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
(B) Standard of Proof - Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are to be adjudicated on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Strict proof of the manner of the accident may not always be possible for claimants. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained when a motorcycle hit him while he was walking as a pedestrian. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition primarily because a hospital accident form indicated the claimant was a driver and was not wearing a helmet. However, the MLC register and the intimation sent to the police by the hospital recorded the claimant as a pedestrian. The claimant appealed against the dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the MLC register and police intimation were primary documents that substantiated the claimant's version. The entry in the case sheet was likely written by PG students and lacked sufficient evidentiary value to discard the entire case. The Tribunal's dismissal was based on hyper-technical reasons not applicable to motor accident claims.
Issues: Whether the claim petition could be dismissed based on a contradictory entry in a hospital case sheet despite supporting evidence in the MLC register and police records, and the determination of just compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: In motor vehicle accident claims, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. Primary documents like the MLC register and police investigation reports take precedence over secondary case sheet entries, especially when the latter are authored by junior staff or students.
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- tort
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Tribunal erred relying on hospital record showing claimant as driver; claimant was pedestrian hit by motorcycle. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Hospital MLC register and police intimation show pedestrian hit by two-wheeler; Ex.R2 written by PG students has less weight. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Motor accident claims require proof on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 13 )
5. Appeal allowed in part; Tribunal judgment set aside; compensation of Rs.8,63,597 awarded with 6% interest. (Para 15 , 26 , 27 )
6. What standard of proof applies in motor accident claim proceedings?
Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are decided on preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 13 )
7. Can a claim petition be dismissed based solely on a hospital discharge summary written by a nurse?
No, a claim petition cannot be rejected solely on a discharge summary by a nurse when other evidence supports the claimant's version. (Para 13 )
8. How should courts assess disability for loss of future income in injury cases?
Disability to a limb may be assessed at one-third of the limb disability for whole body disability calculation. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
1. The claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 28.03.2022 passed in MVC No.2817/2020 by the M.A.C.T. Bengaluru (for short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant - appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.03.2020 at about 06.50 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on the side of the road near Lingadagudi Temple, T. Gollahalli Village. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HC-3689 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained multiple fractures on his right leg and also the other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital wherein he was administered first-aid treatment and thereafter, shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru for higher treatment. Later, he filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the accidental injuries he sustained in the accident.
3. In order to prove the claim before the Tribunal, the appellant - claimant examined himself as PW.1 so also examined three other witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. The insurance company also examined its officer as RW.1 and produced five documents as Exs.R1 to R5.
4. The Tribunal upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant- claimant. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the instant appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant primarily contended that the Tribunal grossly erred while dismissing the claim petition primarily relying on Ex.R2 i.e., the details of accident form wherein the patient detail is mentioned as driver and it is also stated that he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal totally brushed aside the MLC register of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital at Ex.P17 which clearly reveals that the accident was caused while the claimant was walking i.e., as a pedestrian hit by a two wheeler at Gollahalli road, Kodihalli. Further, Ex.P18 - the intimation to the Police sent by the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital also reveals the said aspect. Moreover, the claimant in order to substantiate the said documents examined PW.4 - Chief Medical Officer of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, who was the author of Exs.P17 and P18. As such, he submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in discarding these primary documents. He further contended that PW.4 - doctor has specifically stated in his testimony that Ex.R2 might have written by the PG students. In such circumstances, no evidentiary value can be attached to Ex.R2. Hence, he submits that mere mentioning of driver in Ex.R2 itself is not sufficient to discard the entire case of the claimant, since in the accidental case, the standard of proof is required only to the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not the proof beyond reasonable doubt as held by the catena of judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, more particularly in the case of MANGLA RAM V. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - 2018 (5) SCC 656.
7. He also contended that due to the accident the claimant sustained open right knee with distal femur fracture, Proximal tibia fracture, right 5th metatarsal fracture and right calcaneal fracture as stated by PW.2 - the treated doctor. Moreover, the said doctor has assessed the disability of the claimant at 60% to the right lower limb and 20% to the whole body. In such circumstances, he prays to grant the just compensation by allowing the appeal filed by the claimant.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company by supporting the impugned judgment, contended that the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition
