In MACT claim cases, the test is a preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and strict rules of pleadings and proof do not apply.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr Pai for the Appellant; Ms Rosette Pereira for Respondents No.1 and 2; Ms Salkar for Respondent No.3.

2. The Appellant -Claimant challenges the Judgment and Award dated 21st September 2015, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Margao (Tribunal), dismissing his Claim Petition No.40/2013.

3. The Tribunal has held that the Claimant failed to prove that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of Respondent No.2, i.e. the driver of the Indigo Manza car bearing registration No.GA-08-F-6369. Upon recording this finding, the Tribunal did not even bother to compute the compensation to which the Claimant would have otherwise been entitled. This approach of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore vs State of Karnataka and ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 342. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to its earlier decisions that the Courts/Tribunal must decide all issues together and avoid shortcuts.

4. In Bimlesh & Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 591 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim petition. Therefore, even after holding that the issue of rashness and negligence is not proven, the Tribunal should not shirk deciding on other issues, including the quantum of compensation. Thus, it is clear that the approach of the Tribunal in this matter in not deciding the issue of quantum of compensation, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. Even on the issue of rashness and negligence, the approach of the Tribunal is in direct conflict with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., (2021) 1 SCC 171. In the present case, the Claimant, apart from examining himself, had examined two eyewitnesses, AW.2 and AW.4. The evidence of the Claimant and these two eyewitnesses was quite clear and convincing, considering that the issue of rashness and negligence had to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only.

6. However, the Tribunal has rejected the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the specious plea that there were no precise pleadings about the exact manner in which the accident occurred. In this case, the car driver, i.e. Respondent No.1, did not step into the witness box. Consequently, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the Respondents about the genesis of the accident. Yet, on this specious plea that there were no precise pleadings, the Tribunal chose to reject the Claimant's case and held that the rashness and negligence were not proved. As noted earlier, this approach was contrary to the law laid down in Anita Sharma (supra).

7. The car driver-Respondent No.1, has filed a written statement in which he denied the car's involvement. In the written statement, the car driver denied practically everything. The written statement, duly verified at least prima facie, amounts to perjury. Almost every pleading in the claim statement has been denied without any sense of responsibility. After all this, Respondent No.1 failed to enter the witness box. The Tribunal, instead of drawing an adverse inference against the car driver, has held that the issue of rashness and negligence was not proved simply because there were no precise pleadings in the claim petition.

8. In Anita Sharma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the owner-cum-driver denied the responsibility for the accident through his written statement but chose not to enter the witness box in his defence. In such circumstances, the Court held that the Tribunal was duty bound to draw an adverse inference. The Court also held that the approach of the High Court was not sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events on the spot or the Appellant's hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting in