IMPORTANT POINTS
Hyper technical and trivial approach in case of motor accident claim is not sustainable.
Evidence of a witness not shaken in cross-examined has to be believed.
Standard of proof in motor accident claim cases is preponderance of probability.
There is no error in deducting income tax from calculated income of the deceased while determining compensation.

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Leave granted.

2. The captioned appeal assails the decision of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, dated 25th July, 2018 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 521 of 2017, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 (The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation) owner of the offending vehicle, was allowed. The High Court was pleased to set aside the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (for short "the Tribunal") in favour of the appellants/claimants for the death of their family member, Sitaram and consequently dismissed the SBCMA No. 581/2017 filed by the appellants for enhancement of the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal.

3. Briefly stated, on 28th October, 2011 at around 7 A.M., Sitaram (husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3, minor children) was riding a motorcycle, bearing registration number RJ-25 SA 6923, along with a pillion rider, one Rajulal Khateek, when the motorcycle collided with a bus coming from the opposite direction bearing registration number RJ-26/P.A. 0042, owned by respondent No. 1 and rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 2. The accident resulted in the death of Sitaram and severe injuries to the pillion rider, Rajulal Khateek. Thereafter, the appellants and the parents of the deceased Sitaram filed two separate petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the death of Sitaram, who was a senior teacher in a Government school, from the respondents, to the tune of Rs. 2,62,02,408/- and Rs. 1,13,42,984/-, respectively.

4. The respondents resisted the said claim petitions. They denied that the offending bus had caused the accident. They contended that the accident was caused due to the mistake and negligence on the part of the deceased Sitaram himself as he was riding on the wrong side of the road and he did not know how to ride the motorcycle. He did not have a valid driving licence and was not wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, which was in violation of traffic rules. The respondents also doubted the validity of the evidence and witnesses on record.

5. The Tribunal in its judgment dated 14th December, 2016, extensively analysed the evidence on record. It considered the evidence of the deceased's wife Sunita (appellant No. 1 herein), who deposed about the accident which resulted in Sitaram's death. The father of Sitaram, Mool Chand Kirad (A.D.3), also deposed about the accident of the offending bus with the motorcycle causing the death of Sitaram at the spot of the accident. The Tribunal also considered FIR No. 247/2011 (Exh.1) and charge-sheet (Exh.2) filed against respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and Sections 134/187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act"). It noted that the respondents had not challenged the FIR or the charge-sheet before any authority.

6. The Tribunal also examined the deposition of Bhagchand Khateek (A.D.2), a witness to the incident who deposed that he had gone to his brother's house at Shivad village, one day prior to the date of the accident. At the time of the accident, he had gone to relieve himself and was walking on the left side of the road when he saw the motorcycle with number RJ 25 SA 6923, which was also on the left side of the road, being hit by the offending bus bearing registration No. RJ-26/P.A. 0042, being driven at a high speed coming on to the wrong side of the road, resulting in the instant death of the rider of the motorcycle. He further deposed that the name of the driver of the offending bus was Banwari (respondent No. 2). In his cross-examination, Bhagchand revealed that he did not see Banwari (respondent No. 2) after the accident and further, that there was a pillion rider on the motorcycle who was a man, but he couldn't identify the man's age.

7. The respondents challenged the evidence of Bhagchand (A.D.2) on the ground that his name was n