The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor accident case, including the driver's negligence, the status of the deceased as a passenger, and the insurance company's liability under the insurance policy.

1. By this Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants question the Judgment dated 24.09.2008 delivered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao, in Claim Petition no. 51 of 2008 dismissing the same.

2. The basic facts are not in dispute. The deceased Josepha Fernandes @ Josepha Da Silva, aged about 45 years, was the wife of appellants No. 1. The other appellants are the brothers and sisters of the deceased and their respective spouses, as they qualified to be heirs in view of the local law. The learned Counsel for claimants, particularly on behalf of appellants No. 1, has submitted that they may not qualify as dependents. The accident has taken place on 17.06.2007 when deceased was proceeding towards Pontemol on Curchorem market, Mirabag road, on a motorcycle bearing no. GA-02-Q-4957. She fell down from motorcycle near Kens Corner Bar and Restaurant at about 14.50 hours. The motorcycle was being driven by respondent no.1. Respondent no. 1 fled away with the motorcycle. The deceased succumbed to her injuries on the very same day. The claimants state that she was working as a labourer, was healthy and supporting the family. She was earning about Rs.4,500/-per month and in addition was also performing her daily duties as a housewife. They, therefore, sought compensation of Rs.6,08,000/-. Respondent No. 1 did not contest the proceedings. Respondent no. 2-Insurance Company, filed written statement and opposed the claim. It contended that deceased was a gratuitous passenger and being pillion rider, Insurance Company was not bound to indemnify respondent No. 1 in relation to the accident. It also submitted that the Insurance policy did not cover such accident when motorcycle was used for hire and reward. They also denied the age of the deceased.

3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), framed the following issues and answered the same as mentioned against these issues:

ISSUES FINDINGS

1. Whether the applicants prove that the accident occurred on account of rash/negligent riding of motorcycle bearing no. GA-02/Q-4957 by the Respondent no. 1? Negative

2. Whether the applicants prove that the deceased suffered injuries in the accident that resulted in her death? Affirmative

3. Whether the applicants prove that they are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,08,000/-? Negative

4. Whether the respondent no. 2 proves that it is not liable to indemnify the respondent no. 1 since the deceased was a pillion rider and not covered by the policy? Negative

5. Whether the respondent No. 2 proves that the deceased had hired the motorcycle of respondent No. 1? Affirmative

4. Respondent no. 3 before this Court is one of the claimants and has no interest adverse to that of the appellants.

5. Advocate Shri S. S. Kakodkar appearing for the Appellants, has invited attention to evidence of two eye witnesses namely AW.2-Sandeep Kakodkar and AW. 4-Dinesh Komarpant. He has also pointed out the sketch map to urge that the road was straight and sufficiently wide. According to him, in this situation, the deceased fell down and back side of her head got fractured only because of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1. He has shown the postmortem report to submit that multiple or severe fracture shown therein is due to fall on back and the fall must be attributed to the speed, as also the rash and negligent manner in which the motorcycle was being driven. He contends that in this situation, the finding by the MACT that the claimants did not establish rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 is unsustainable.

6. Without prejudice to these submissions, he points out the yardsticks to be applied by the MACT to find out whether there was any rashness or negligence. He submits that proof beyond doubt is not the requirement of law and the reasonable probability is more than sufficient. He also contends that registration of FIR and filing of chargesheet against the delinquent driver is held sufficient by