JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 25.10.2016 in Claim Petition No.102/2014 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Goa (Tribunal), awarding the claimants Archana, widow of late Antonio Fernandes, and Elrio, minor son of Antonio, compensation of Rs.14,17,000/-on account of a vehicular accident that took place on 14.10.2012.

3. The accident was between a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration no.GA-07-B-0010 that Antonio was riding and Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration no.GA-07-A-4574 that one Viniket Kanapeni was riding. The evidence on record now bears out that Viniket was a minor, having no driving license. Unfortunately, Viniket also died in the same accident.

4. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, has fastened the liability on Navin C. Naik, the appellant herein, who is admittedly the owner of the Pulsar motorcycle. Hence, this appeal.

5. Mr. Amonkar, at the outset, made it clear that the appellant was not questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. He, however, submitted that in this case, there is no evidence whatsoever either about the involvement of the Pulsar motorcycle or, in any case, there is no evidence about the accident taking place due to any rashness and negligence on the part of Viniket -the driver of the Pulsar motorcycle. Therefore, he submits that there was no question of fastening any liability on the appellant in the absence of any proof of rashness and negligence.

6. Mr. Amonkar submits that documents like FIR, panchanama, and sketch produced on record do not constitute substantive evidence. The author of these documents was never examined and, therefore, even the contents of such documents remain unproven. He submits that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in relying on such documents. He relied on Narayan Kalangutkar & Anr. V/s. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2012 (2) Mh.L.J. 803 and Jiju Kuruvila & Ors. V/s. Kunjujamma Mohan & Ors. - Civil appeal nos.4945-4946 of 2013 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2013, in support of his contentions.

7. Mr. Amonkar submits that the Tribunal erred in relying on the testimony of Mr. Sydney Barreto (AW3), the alleged eyewitness to the accident. He submitted that AW3 was a got-up witness, and there are several contradictions in his testimony. He submitted that even if the presence of AW3 at the spot or near the site is accepted, it was impossible for AW3 actually to witness the accident from his position and location. Mr. Amonkar, therefore, submits that the Tribunal should not have relied upon the testimony of AW3 in support of the finding of rashness and negligence.

8. Mr. Milton Marshal, learned Counsel for Archana and Elrio (claimants), defends the impugned award based on reasoning therein. He submits that the police documents were not objected to and were accordingly admitted in evidence. Such documents corroborate the sterling testimony of AW3 -an eyewitness. The proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature, and the standard of proof is that of the preponderance of probabilities. He relied on several decisions, including Vidhyadhar V/s. Mankikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441, Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/s. Premlata Shukla & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 476 Sunita & Ors. V/s. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., Anita Sharma & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Ors., (2020) 13 SCC 486, Anita Sharma & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., (2021) 1 SCC 171, Bimlesh & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591, Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. V/s. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 646 and Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors. V/s. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (P) Ltd. & Anr., (1977) 2 SCC 745 in support of his contentions.

9. Mr. Marshal also submitted that the appellant has taken patently false evidence that the Pulsar motorcycle was not even involved in the accident in this ca