IMPORTANT POINT
The standard of proof for establishing a road traffic accident is that of preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Strict principles of evidence and standards of proof in MACT claim cases are inapplicable.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Sri. P.N. Hosamane and Sri. S.S. Joshi.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 395/2007 dated 04.03.2010 on the file of III Addl. MACT Bagalkot, whereby claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants came to be dismissed.

3. Facts in brief for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 A Claim petition came to be filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act contending that on 03.04.2007, Basanagouda Patil after completion of his work, while returning to his native village Keruru on motorcycle bearing No. KA-29/J-7552, following the required traffic rules, near Konamma Temple, Badami at about 21.45 hours, a tom tom (three wheeler) bearing reg. No. KA-26/4864, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle whereby Basanagouda, Patil sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Badami and later, he was shifted to Kerudi Hospital for higher treatment at Bagalkote. Despite the treatment, Basanagouda Patil did not survive and he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 05.04.2007.

4. Therefore, petitioners being dependants, filed claim petition seeking appropriate compensation.

5. Upon service of notice of the claim petition, driver of the offending vehicle and owner of the vehicle appeared through counsel and filed objection to the claim petition and denied the accident as is contended by the claimants. He also contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the ‘tum tum’ and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. Respondent No. 3 - insurance company also filed separate written statement admitting the issuance of the policy to the offending vehicle and denied the liability of the insurance company.

7. The age of the claimants and other details were also denied and claimants are put to strict proof. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether petitioners proves that on 03-04-2007 deceased was travelling on his motorcycle bearing Reg. NO. KA-29/J-7552 on Badami-Bagalkot road at about 09-45 P.M. at that time from opposite direction a tomtom vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-26/4684 driven by its driver came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased near Konamma Temple, resulting deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death in hospital on 05-04-2007?

2. Whether petitioners prove the age, occupation and of the deceased as on the date of accident?

3. Whether petitioners prove they are entitled for compensation claim? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?

4. What order or award?”

8. In order to prove the case of the claimants, first claimant got examined as PW-1 and eye witness to the accident by name Basalingayya Sharanabasayya Hiremath as PW-2. Claimants placed on record 13 documentary evidences, which were marked as Ex.P1 to P13.

9. As against the evidence placed on record by the claimants, there is no oral evidence placed on record on behalf of the respondent. Respondent-insurance company placed on record insurance policy and endorsement which were marked as Ex.R1 and R2.

10. Learned trial judge on conclusion of the recording of the evidence, considered the same in a cumulative manner dismissed the claim petition holding that the nature of accident as is propounded by the claimants is not permissible and there is no negligence proved on the part of the driver of the ‘tum tum’ vehicle and dismissed the claim petition.

11. Being aggrieved by the same, the appeal came to be filed by the claimants on the following grounds:

“1. The judgment passed by Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition is illegal, perverse and capricious and contrary to the established principal of law.

2. The tribunal failed to consider the case of the appellants that charge sheet id filed against the driver of the tomtom vehicle (three wheeler) and hence it is conclusive proof of negligence on the part of the r