Court emphasized the need for a preponderance of probabilities in establishing negligence in motor accident claims, reiterating that strict proof is not necessary.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

M.A.C.M.A.No.3020 of 2016

I. Introductory:-

Dissatisfied with the award and decree dated 27.08.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2007 on the file of the XII Additional District Judge- cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Vijayawada [for short “MACT”], the claimants filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. The claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the learned MACT under the impugned orders.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as the claimants and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

II. Case of claimants:

3. [i] One Dharmachakra Narayana Rao, [herein after referred as ‘the deceased’] is the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of the claimant Nos.2 and 3 and son of claimant Nos.4 and 5.

[ii] On the fateful day i.e. on 11.09.2006 9.30 a.m., while the deceased was coming to Guduru from Chennai on his Motor cycle bearing No.TN 22 AH 3156, a lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 8669 [herein after referred as ‘the offending vehicle’] being driven by the 1^st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, without indicating the signals and dashed the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling, whereby the accident occurred and the deceased died on the spot.

[iii] A case in Crime No.140 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was registered in Nayudupet Police Station.

[iv] Negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is the cause for the accident and the offending vehicle is owned by the 2^nd respondent, insured with the 3^rd respondent, therefore, all the respondents are accountable and liable to pay compensation.

[v] The deceased was aged about ‘48’ years, hale and healthy. By the time of accident, he was drawing an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as remuneration. He was an Income Tax assessee. Due to the unfortunate death of the deceased, the claimants lost valuable financial support, love and affection. Hence, they are entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, which the respondents are liable to pay.

4. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte.

III. Case of Respondent No.3 / Insurance Company:

5. Claimants shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and death of the deceased due to the accident; age, occupation and income of the deceased at the rate claimed, valid and effective driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle and that the Policy issued by the respondent No.3 has been in force etc..

6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1) Whether the deceased P.Dharmachakra Naryana Rao died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 11.09.2006 at 9.30 a.m. at Pandurru cross-road, NH-5, Nayudupet, Nellore District due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 8669?

2) If so, what is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation as prayed for? If so, from whom and what amount?

4) T