The standard of proof in motor accident claim cases is one of preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts/Tribunals should calculate just compensation based on the circumstances of the claimants and legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kantak for the appellant and Mr. Vaman Kurtikar for respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 (Claimants).

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 24.03.2015 in Claim Petition No. 105/2011 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji (Tribunal) awarding the claimants compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. on account of the demise of Santosh Sawant upon whom the claimants were dependent in a vehicular accident on 05.08.2011 at Sao Pedro, Old Goa.

3. Mr. Kantak, learned counsel for the Kadamba Transport Corporation (KTC), submitted that there is no evidence to establish any rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the KTC bus. He submitted that there is variance between the pleadings and proof and the claimants failed to establish that the accident took place as pleaded by them. He submits that the sketch annexed to the panchanama, if evaluated in a proper perspective, makes it evident that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligence on the part of late Santosh Sawant, and further there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the KTC bus driver. He made several submissions in the context of the sketch to submit that the same was incorrect on the aspect of the spot of the accident. He submitted that the driver of the KTC bus was already acquitted in criminal proceedings lodged against him. He submitted that the driver of the KTC bus i.e. respondent no. 4 herein has deposed in this matter and explained in great detail how the accident took place due to the negligence of late Santosh Sawant. He submits that all this evidence has not been properly assessed by the Tribunal and therefore the finding of the Tribunal on rashness and negligence warrants reversal.

4. On the aspect of compensation, Mr. Kantak submitted without prejudice that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium when the decision in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 (16) SCC 680 very clearly provides that the compensation towards loss of consortium should be only Rs. 40,000/-. He submitted that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of care and protection for children is also unheard and the same is required to be deleted because of Pranay Sethi (supra). He submitted that the compensation towards funeral expenses should have been Rs. 15,000/- and not Rs. 25,000/-. He submitted that the Tribunal has failed to deduct the tax component from the salary and therefore the compensation towards dependency is also excessive.

5. Mr. Kantak finally submitted that in this case the finding of rashness and negligence recorded by the Tribunal should be reversed and the claim petition should be dismissed. In the alternate, he submitted that the compensation amount should be suitably reduced on account of the errors pointed out by him. He submitted that this appeal should be accordingly allowed.

6. Mr. Kurtikar, learned counsel for the claimants defended the impugned award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He however submitted that the claimants are entitled to additional compensation, in terms of the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130. He submitted that the Appellate Court is competent to determine the just compensation even in the absence of an appeal by the claimants.

7. Mr. Kurtikar submitted that the evidence on the aspect of rashness and negligence has to be construed holistically and there is no error whatsoever in the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the aspect of rashness and negligence. He relies on Sunita and Others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Others, (2020) 13 SCC 486, Anita Sharma and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171 in support of this proposition. He also relies on the decisions of this Court in Narcinvha Chari