Claimants in motor vehicle accident cases should only establish preponderance of probabilities regarding vehicle involvement, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

The unsuccessful claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for setting aside the judgment of dismissal and award passed in MVC No.2241/2015 dated 03.06.2017 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Additional MACT, Belagavi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Tribunal for convenience and clarity.

3. The appellants/claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act in respect of death of one Doddagouda, the son of claimants No.1 and 2 and husband of claimant No.3, who has succumbed to injuries in the accident that occurred on 30.11.2014 at about 22.15 hours involving motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-22/EP-5077 and a truck bearing Reg.No.MH- 06/AQ-8558. It is contented that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident, was working as ‘medical representative’ & doing agriculture and was earning Rs.40,000/- per month. It is further contended that they have lost the only bread earner of the family and hence filed the claim petition seeking compensation under different heads.

4. On service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear. However, respondent No.2-insurer appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement denying the petition averments and took contention that claim of petitioners is exorbitant and no such accident as alleged in the claim petition has taken place. It took further contention that there was no collision between motor cycle and truck and the truck is falsely involved in the case. It has taken all other defences available to the owner and insurer and further took contention that there was no valid and effective driving licence to the person who was riding the motorcycle and also the truck and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.3 was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining the eyewitness as P.W.2, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and closed their side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondent No.2, its official is examined as R.W.1 apart from marking Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed its side.

6. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of truck bearing Reg.No.MH-06/AQ-8558 in causing the accident in the present case and thereby dismissed the claim petition.

7. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the claimants/appellants are before this Court.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants Smt.Chetana S Biraj would submit that the claimants have produced all available materials before the Tribunal to show that the offending vehicle-truck is involved in the present case. She would submit that as on the date of accident, the owner of the Dhaba, in front of which the accident had taken place, has lodged the complaint stating that the name of offending vehicle is not known. However, on the next day itself, the eyewitness i.e., P.W.2 has given his statement before the police officer in respect of involvement of the offending vehicle and also stated the name of driver of the vehicle. However, the Tribunal has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective.

10. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in 2025 INSC 452 dated 07.04.2025 ( Kuncham Lavanya and Others vs. Baja