Negligence in motor accident claims is determined by preponderance of probabilities, not by criminal proceedings standard.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17^th day of March, 2026 This appeal is preferred against the award dated

28.02.2023 in O.P.(M.V.) No.779/2009. The claim petition was filed by the first respondent in relation to an accident that occurred on 02.01.2008 while he was driving an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-08-L-7943 along the Vadookara–Koorkanchery public road towards Thrissur. When the autorickshaw reached in front of Milma Road, another autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-08-X-9210, driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the petitioner’s autorickshaw. As a result of the said accident, the petitioner sustained serious bodily injuries, including a fracture to the left femur. He was immediately taken to the hospital and underwent treatment. It is contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-08-X-9210 by the first respondent.

2. The second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the third respondent is the insurer. The Tribunal considered the issues relating to the cause of the accident, the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, and whether he is entitled to compensation. On the side of the claimant, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked, and on the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B5 were marked.

3. The primary challenge in this appeal is against the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence on the part of the driver. It is the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal erred in attributing negligence to both the drivers solely on the basis that they had pleaded guilty before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur in C.C. No.659/2008, in which offences under Sections 279 and

337 of the IPC were alleged.

4. The Tribunal also relied on Ext.B5, which is a copy of the award in O.P.(M.V.) No.2340/2008 filed by the driver of the other autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-08-X- 9210. Ultimately, the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that the claimant himself was also negligent and thereby held that there was contributory negligence on his part. According to the appellant, the said finding of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law. It is further contended that once the claimant himself is found negligent, the insurer cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation in the manner determined by the Tribunal.

5. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd., North Paravur v. Sajeev and Others [2018 (1) KHC 795] , wherein the question considered was whether the act of a driver pleading guilty before the criminal court would amount to conclusive proof of negligence. This Court held that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings and that required in proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are entirely different. It was further held that the Tribunal must arrive at an independent finding on negligence based on the evidence available before it while adjudicating a claim petition.

6. In a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , negligence is to be determined on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, unlike in criminal proceedings where the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Such degree of probability that would satisfy the mind of a prudent man as to the existence of a fact is what is called preponderance of probability.

7. In the present case, instead of relying on the independent evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal appears to have mainly relied upon the circumstance that both the claimant and the driver of the other vehicle had pleaded guilty before the criminal court, namely the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur in C.C. No.659/2008. Such an approach is contrary to the princip