The standard of proof required in a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is much below that required in a criminal or civil case, and the claimants have to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

K.L. Wadane, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao ("Presiding Officer" for short) in Claim Petition no.130/1994 whereby claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellants is dismissed.

2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition.

3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:-

Claimants have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

On 14.9.1993 at about 8.30pm, the deceased Shamu Gangaram Dhotre (i.e. husband of claimant no.1 and father of claimants no. 2 to 6) was proceeding to his residential house situated at Fondkulem, Sanvordem, Goa. When he reached near the primary school at Sanvordem, a truck bearing registration No. GA-02-T-6639 driven by the respondent no.2 in a rash and negligent manner, gave a violent dash to the deceased Shamu Gangaram Dhotre. Due to the dash, the deceased was crushed under the truck and died on the spot. After the accident the respondent no.2, the driver of the offending vehicle ran away from the spot without providing aid to the deceased or without informing the police. On inquiry, it was revealed that the respondent no.2 was solely responsible for the accident and for the death of Shamu Gangaram Dhotre. Therefore, the claimants have claimed total compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) on all counts.

4. The respondents no.1 and 2 i.e owner and the driver of the vehicle have opposed the petition by filing their written statement and they have denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident on the said date and time. According to these respondents, the panchanama and the sketch drawn by the police does not speak about the involvement of the truck in the accident. Even FIR does not speak about the involvement of the said truck. The postmortem report of the deceased does not show any nexus between the cause of the death and the alleged accident. Rest of the contentions of the petition are denied.

5. The respondents no.1 and 2 came with the specific defence that on the day and time of the accident, their vehicle was out of Sanvordem as it was engaged to carry some goods to Margao and the said truck returned to Margao only at 11.00 p.m. and brought to the residence of the respondents. Police have manipulated and fabricated the documents and made these respondents as victims to this claim petition. The respondent no.3 also denied all the contents of the petition, however has admitted that the truck was insured at the time of the accident.

6. Considering the rival contentions of both sides, the learned Presiding officer had framed three issues. First is relating to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Second is relating to the death of Shamu Gangaram Dhotre in the accident and third is entitlement of the compensation.

7. Out of the above three issues, the finding on the first issue was recorded in the negative and issues no. 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmatives. Hence, the present appeal.

8. In order to establish the claim of the claimants, CW1 adduced her oral evidence and CW2-Pratap Pausekar, CW3- Sudhakar Dessai, CW4-Yeshwant Bhottikar and CW5-Anand Nair were examined to establish the fact of the accident and involvement of the vehicle in the accident.

9. As against this respondent no. 2 led his evidence besides the oral evidence, panchanama and the sketch are produced on record.

10. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. E. Afonso, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and I have also gone through the entire evidence on record with the help of learned counsel for both the sides.

11. On perusal of the reasons recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, it appears that it has rejected the petition broadly on the ground that the evidence of so called eye