In motor accident cases, the standard of proof required is preponderance of probabilities, and the court must take a holistic view of evidence to infer culpability from reasonable circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the arguments of Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company through virtual mode. Also heard Sri Bora Naganjaneyulu, learned counsel representing Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 12.04.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.397 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one M.Bhaskar (hereinafter referred to ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 01.11.2004 involving the jeep bearing registration No.AP04 U 4138.

5. The case of the claimants is that on 01.11.2004 the deceased was driving a jeep bearing registration No.AP07 W 3395 and when the jeep reached a place near R.S.Garments Factory near Mangalam; the deceased stopped the jeep by the side of the road and got down to attend the nature call; then another jeep bearing registration No.AP04 U 4138 (hereinafter referred to ‘offending vehicle’) came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased; as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot; police registered a case, investigated the accident and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the offending vehicle opining that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; the claimants are the dependants of the deceased; claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the vehicle bearing registration No.AP04 U 4138 i.e., offending vehicle not involved in the accident on 01.11.2004; the deceased might have died in some other accident; the claimants filed the petition implicating the offending vehicle for wrongful gain; police made only paper investigation.

8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased one Bhaskar @ Bachi died due to injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.11.2004 prior to 11.00 PM on Tirupati- Karakamabadi road near R.S. Garments due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep bearing registration No.AP04 U 4238 of the 1st respondent and the said Jeep was duly insured with the 2nd respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant was examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked six document as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, respectively. Sri D.Gangi Naidu was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, its Assistant Manager viz., K.Sreedhar was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were filed.

10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,71,000/- towards just compensation and passed the decree against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle making them jointly and severally liable for compensation amount.

11. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the appeal challenging on the ground that the finding of the learned Tribunal that offending vehicle involved in the impugned accident, is erroneous.

12. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the