The assessment of evidence in accident claims is based on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.

JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi, J. - By this appeal, Insurance Company claims exception to the Judgment and award dated 16.01.2020 passed by the learned Member of Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in Motor accident Claim Petition No. 189 of 2018, whereby the claim for compensation was partly allowed.

2. Respondents/claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Nandkishor who died in vehicular accident dated 10.04.2018. at the relevant time, deceased was proceeding by motorcycle to whom the ofending vehicle namely Maharashtra State Transport Corporation Goods carrying bus bearing Registration No. MTB-2292 coming from opposite direction gave severe dash. The accident resulted into the death of Nandkishor. Thereafter, the legal heirs of Nandkishor have fled claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for his death. The compensation has been claimed from the appellant who is the owner of State Transport Bus involved in the accident. The tribunal held that due to rash and negligent driving of bus driver, accident occurred and accordingly, assessed the compensation on the basis of notional income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 9,52,000/-.

3. In this appeal, the appellant Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation has primly challenged the involvement of State Transport bus in accident apart from other defences. Rather, the defence of non-involvement was the center of focus. In this regard, the appellant relied on the evidence of bus driver, Deepak Madeswar and the S.T. Depot Inward register. It has come in the evidence of buy driver that on that day, though he plied concerned bus on the same road, however, the bus was not involved in the accident. He deposed that, on that day he proceeded from Loha to Kandhar and deposited the bus in Kandhar Depot around 7.45 p.m. In support of his contention, inward register of Kandhar Depot has been produced showing the entry that bus bearing Registration No. MTB 2292 was deposited in S.T. Depot at 7.45 p.m.

4. as against this, the claimants have submitting that a false defence has been raised to escape from the statutory liability. The widow of the deceased led evidence on afdavit contending that at the relevant time, the deceased was proceeding towards Shivaji Chowk, Loha. When the deceased reached near the gate of Patbandhare (Irrigation) ofce, the ofending State Transport goods carrying bus came from opposite direction in high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle. True, widow was not the eye witness to the incident. Obviously, her evidence was based on heresay information. The claimants have heavily relied on the F.I.R registered on the following day against the bus driver. It is specifcally contended that, at the relevant time State Transport Goods carrying bus bearing Registration No. MTB-2292 gave a forceful dash to the motorcyclist. In addition to that, claimants have relied on the copy of charge sheet which has been fled against the State Transport bus driver. By relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita and Others Versus Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another 2019 DGLS(Supreme Court )233, it is argued that in accident claims, the evidence is to be assessed on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond the reasonable doubt is not required.

5. Though the learned counsel for the claimant would submit that except inward register, there is no other material, however, (5) Judgment F .a. 1080-2021 there cannot be evidence to prove a negative fact. Principally, it is to be seen whether the applicant's evidence is reliable to hold the involvement of ofending vehicle. If it is so, then as a natural coronary, the defence raised by the appellant is untenable.

6. So far as the factum of death of Nandkishor in vehicular accident is concerned, it is undisputed one. It is the case of the claimants that due to rash and negligent driving of Bus driver, accident occurred. By taking defence of non-involvement of bus, the