IMPORTANT POINT
In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability, allowing claims to succeed even without absolute evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

1. This Appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd., questioning the Order and Decree dated 08.09.2015 passed in M.O.P. No. 66 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs and S.Ts (P.O.A.) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The claimants, the mother and wife of one Siripurapu Suresh (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’), had filed MOP claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased for a sum of Rs.31,00,000/-. As per the claim, the deceased was an employee in the Indian Army and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. On 11.06.2013, when the deceased got down from the bus and while proceeding to Kottam for Kotamma darshan on foot at about 2.00 p.m., an Auto bearing No. AP 35 V 3869 proceeding from the same direction from Kottam road junction coming in a rash and negligent manner with high speed knocked the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple bleeding injuries and was shifted to Community Health Centre, Srungavarapukota. Subsequently, the deceased was referred to Naval Hospital, INHS Kalyani, Visakhapatnam. On 01.07.2013, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

4. The respondent No. 1 was the driver of the auto which was owned by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 3 is the Insurance company under valid policy by the date of accident. A Crime No. 139/2013 was registered for the offense punishable under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the Auto.

5. The respondent No. 2-owner of the Auto filed counter denying the accident and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. The respondent No. 3-Insurance company filed a written statement obviously denying every aspect of the claim.

6. In the course of examination on behalf of claimants, PWs 1 and 5 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked and on behalf of respondents RW-1 was examined, Ex.B.1 copy of policy. The Ex.X.1 to X.3 were marked.

7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the 1st respondent who is the driver of offending vehicle auto bearing No. AP 35 V 3869 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and which respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount?

3. To what relief?

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal while answering Issue No. 1 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto. While answering Issue No. 2, the Tribunal had adopted multiplier of 18 and assessed Rs.15,000/- as the income of the deceased and compensation was calculated by enhancing the same by 50% as the age of the deceased was 25 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.31,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum. Hence, the present Appeal is filed.

9. Heard Sri Amancharla Satish Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Sri Rama Murthy representing Sri P. Gopala Krishna, learned counsel for the Respondents.

10. The principal contention of the appellant is that there are no eye witnesses to the accident and there is no proof that the insured auto had hit the deceased on the fateful day. The counsel relied on the judgment of the judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srungavarapukota in C.C. No. 211 of 2013 dated 06.08.2014 to contend that the driver of the auto was exonerated by the criminal Court after taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 herein, who were examined as PW-4 and PW-2 respectively in the criminal case. No other ground was urged by the appellant.

11. The counsel for the claimant contended that the Tribunal had evaluated the evidence on record and had rightfully come to the conclusion that the accident was caused by the auto driven by the Jagadapu Avatharam. It was