The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mohinder Lal @ Mohinder Pal v. Ladi and Others observed that the test in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cases is not 'beyond reasonable doubt' but 'preponderance of probabilities' and that a claimant is not required to prove ownership of the driver over the offending vehicle.
The Court held that “It is trite that in MACT cases, the test is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but is ‘preponderance of probabilities'. Equally trite is the law that the result of criminal case has no bearing on the claim petition seeking compensation pending before the Tribunal. This Court is guided by law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of NK V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal. It is also not denied that respondent No.1 is facing criminal case on account of rash and negligent driving which itself shall lead to prima facie inference that the accident occurred on account of his rash and negligent act. Reference can be made to law laid down by this Court in the case of Girdhari Lal vs. Radhey Shyam and others, 1993(2) PLR 109.”
The Court also observed that in order to claim compensation, the claimant is not required to prove ownership of the driver over the offending vehicle. Consequently, the claim petition ought not have been dismissed by recording that claimant has failed to bring evidence on record to show that respondent No.1 has concern with the motorcycle. Therefore, w.r.t Issue No 4 i.e., Whether respondent No.1 has no concern with offending motorcycle, if so, its effect, the onus of proof is on the Respondents.
Further, the Court directed the Tribunal to decide the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, keeping in view that the parties are in litigation since 2009.