In cases related to compensation claims in road accidents, the High Court of Karnataka has stated that these cases do not need to be proved like criminal trials. The court made this decision while dismissing an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the compensation awarded to the family of an accident victim. Unlike in criminal trials, claimants in motor accident claims do not have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the distinction between these types of cases and emphasized that the burden of proof for compensation claims should be based on a preponderance of probabilities. The Division Bench of Justices K Somashekar and Rajesh Rai K heard the appeals related to the accident that resulted in the death of Divakar M R on August 13, 2019. Divakar was riding a motorcycle near Durgaparameshwari Temple in Nagarabhavi when a car caused an accident, resulting in his death. The accident was mentioned in the complaint filed by Divakar’s parents, who sought compensation from the insurer. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded them compensation, but they appealed for an enhancement of the amount. The insurance company challenged the compensation, arguing that the accident did not involve their car and that Divakar’s negligence was the cause of his death. However, the High Court of Karnataka affirmed the compensation awarded by the MACT, stating that the claimants do not need strict proof of the accident, but should establish their case based on a preponderance of probabilities. The court also emphasized that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt should not be applied in compensation cases for death or injury in road traffic accidents. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering evidence in terms of social justice and extending the benefit of the doubt to claimants. Ultimately, the HC found the compensation awarded by the MACT to be correct and dismissed the appeal for enhancement filed by the victim’s parents.