JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The widow of Jose Oliveiro, who died in a motor accident that took place on 05.11.2013, appeals the judgment and award dated 06.01.2017 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissing her Claim Petition No.140/2015 on the ground that she failed to prove that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Innova car bearing registration No. GA-08-F-4285 by Naven Cardozo (respondent No.1).

3. The Tribunal, having concluded that the issue of rashness and negligence was not proved by the Appellant, did not even bother to decide the issue of quantum of compensation. This is not the proper approach to be adopted by the Tribunal dealing with the claim petitions.

4. In Bimlesh & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591, in paragraphs 7, 8 & 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has to follow the summary procedure subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not strictly speaking applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in Section 169(2) of the MV Act and the Rules made thereunder. The whole object of the summary procedure is to ensure that the Claim Petition is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously. In paragraph 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim petition. Therefore, normally, the Tribunals should not dispose of the Claim Petitions based on some preliminary issue, usually raised by the Insurance Company about maintainability or otherwise. So also, the Tribunals, even after holding that the issue of rashness and negligence is not proven, should not shirk deciding on other issues, including the issue of the quantum of compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since all the issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in the light of the evidence that may be led in by the parties and not piecemeal, often matters are required to be remanded. In Bimlesh (supra), the matter had to be remanded. Therefore, in this case, it will have to be held that the approach of the Tribunal in not deciding all the issues together is contrary to the law laid down in Bimlesh (supra). Recently, even in the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore Vs The State of Karnataka and others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 307, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the Courts must avoid shortcuts and decide all issues that fall for their determination.

5. Be that as it may, even the approach of the Tribunal on the issue of rashness and negligence is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sunita & Ors. V/s. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors, (2020) 13 SCC 486, Anita Sharma & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., (2021) 1 SCC 171 , Parmeshwari V/s. Amir Chand & Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 635, Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors, (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. V/s. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 646.

6. In all the aforesaid cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the approach of the Courts/Tribunals when dealing with such matters has to be sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events on the spot or the hardship that the claimants usually face in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident when they were themselves not present at the accident spot. Further, the Courts/Tribunals must be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standard of proof, like in a criminal trial, are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such matters is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

7. The Courts/Tribunals have to be mindful that the approach and r