The court clarified that the burden of proof in motor accident cases lies on the Claimant to establish causation based on preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

B.MURALIDHARA PAI, J.

1. The Claimant in MVC No.1012/2010 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Athani (herein after referred as the ‘tribunal’) has come up with this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 05.03.2014 passed therein, dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

2. The parties to this appeal are referred to their original ranking before the tribunal.

3. The Claimant has maintained the petition in MVC No.1012/2010 under Section 166 of M.V.Act praying for compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- on the ground that on06.01.2010 at about 6.00 p.m., when he was returning to the village on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-23-U-7531, on Sutatti - Junjarwad Road, near the house of one Ramagouda Parappa Nemagoudar, a tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he suffered injuries mentioned at Column No.11 of the claim petition and thereby suffered mentally, physically and financially. He has maintained this petition against the owner and the insurer of tipper truck bearing No. KA-20-B-6404.

4. On service of the notice of the petition, the Insurer appeared before the tribunal through their counsel and contested the petition by filing the written statement. Whereas, as the owner remained absent before the tribunal, he was placed ex-parte.

5. The tribunal, after contest, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the Claimant has failed to prove having sustained injuries in a road traffic accident involving tipper truck bearing No.KA-20-B-6404 and account of actionable negligence on the part of its driver. The tribunal came to such conclusion on the ground that the damages on the vehicle mentioned in IMV report marked at Ex.P6 does not correspond with the version of the complaint marked at Ex.P1 and that the Claimant has not produced the vehicle seizure panchanama in order to substantiate involvement of two vehicles. The tribunal disbelieved the case of the Claimant even on the ground that the sketch produced at Ex.P4 goes to show that the accident in question has not taken place in the place as contended by the Claimant and that the Claimant did not choose to examine the complainant/informant, who lodged the complaint in connection with the accident in question. Further, the tribunal relied on the contents of Ex.P8 i.e. discharge summary wherein history of injury is mentioned as ‘RTA-fall’. Accordingly, the tribunal proceeded to hold that the Claimant has failed to establish the alleged accident in question with cogent evidence and that an accident occurred due to self fall has been given a turn to claim compensation by creating false documents.

6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the Claimant has come up with this appeal on the ground that the tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition, by not properly considering the materials placed on record and that the reasoning of the tribunal is not sound. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the Claimant relied on decisions in Mangla Ram Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others ., and others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Akhil Hrishikesh Sharma Vs Suresh S. Rachannavar and Another , reported in 2022 (1) Kar.L.J 477(D) and submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the legal principles enunciated in these decisions and liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for Insurer supported the findings recorded by the tribunal and submitted that