IMPORTANT POINT
The standard of proof required in proving a road traffic accident is that of preponderance of possibility, especially in cases where securing eyewitnesses is difficult due to the nature and location of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

Though the matters are listed for orders, by consent of parties, these matters are taken up for final disposal.

2. Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the validity of judgment and award passed in MVC No.1221/2014 and MVC No.1222/20214 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi dated 30.08.2017.

3. In the case on hand, admitted facts are as under:

3.1. Claimants being injured persons, in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.08.2013 at about 3.30 p.m. on Karwar-Hubballi road near Mishrikoti Kadankoppa, laid claims for awarding suitable compensation.

4. Claim petitions on contest came to be allowed in a sum of Rs.77,350/-and Rs.1,19,050/-respectively in respect of claims in MVC No.1221/2014 and MVC No.1222/2014.

5. Insurance Company is challenging the validity of said judgment on the ground that TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25/EM-7353 has been falsely implicated in the alleged road traffic accident and sought for admitting the appeals and set aside the impugned order.

6. Material evidence on record is in the form of oral evidence of claimants.

7. On behalf of the respondent, officer of the Insurance Company by name Chandrakant Naik has been examined as RW.1. There is one witness examined on behalf of the Court by name Shershah Kammar, who has filed the medical records.

8. Tribunal taking note of the material evidence on record agreed with the case of the claimants and allowed the claim petitions as referred to supra.

9. While dealing with the issue No.1, i.e. with regard to the proof of accident, the Tribunal took into consideration that police records sufficiently indicated involvement of TATA ACE vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25/EM-7353. Driver of the said vehicle is one Suresh has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

10. The only ground on which the Insurance Company is horping upon to advance their case is that there is no eyewitness to the incident. The said aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the learned Trial Judge. Nature or standard of proof that is required to be placed on record in a motor accidental claim is no longer res integra.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anita Sharma and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, reported in 2021(1) SCC 171 has clearly held that the standard of proof is that is required to be adopted in proving the accident in that of preponderance of possibility.

12. In a matter of this nature where an accident takes place in a lonely place, it is highly difficult for the investigation agency to investigate the matter especially by examining the eye witness.

13. If the accident takes place in a busy area or in a urban area it is easy to secure eyewitness to the incident. But when the accident has occurred in the rural area or a road which was not that busy then procuring an eyewitness is a difficult task for more than one reason.

14. Firstly, those who have witnessed the accident might not be interested in setting of the criminal law in motion.

15. Secondly, even if the some persons were come to rescue the injured they may refrain to intimate the police based on their past experience with the investigation agency or general impression they carry about the police.

16. Under such circumstances, expecting an eyewitness to be present in each and every case, is far from reality.

17. Suffice to say, that the driver is the one person who could have thrown some light about the incident apart from the injured persons who are also eyewitnesses to the incident.

18. Unless some material is available on record which would compel the Court to come to a conclusion that there is an active collusion between the injured persons, driver and owner of the vehicle only to lay a false claim of compensation from the Insurance Company by falsely implicating the vehicle, formal proof in the form of police records would be sufficient enough for the T