The standard of proof in claim proceedings is that of a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt, and delay tactics in stalling the execution of an Award without securing the awarded amount are condemned.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Parag Rao, who appears along with Mr. Akhil Parrikar for the Appellants. The Respondent, though served, neither present nor represented.

2. The appellants - driver and owner of Honda scooter bearing Registration No.GA-06-H-0384, challenge the judgment and Award dated 17.12.2018 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa at Margao (Tribunal) in Claim Petition No.4/2013 awarding compensation of Rs.14 lakhs to the Respondent-claimant who suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 75% in the vehicular accident that occurred on 05.08.2011.

3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the Appellants, submits that the finding on the issue of rashness and negligence is vitiated by perversity. He points out that the first Appellant (Sidharth) was prosecuted but honorably acquitted by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Case No.95/S/2012. He submits that the finding in the acquittal order, though not binding on the Tribunal, ought to have been considered. He presents that deposition of the Respondent and his admission that it was drizzling at the time of the accident before the Magistrate was relevant but was excluded from consideration by the Tribunal. He submits that if the entire evidence, including the evidence, led before the Magistrate were to be considered by the Tribunal, then it would be apparent that the finding on rashness and negligence is unsustainable.

4. Mr. Rao submitted that the claimant had come up with a false case as to the genesis of the accident. He pointed out that the claimant deposed to the location of the Shiv Sagar building being on the right side of the road when the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the same was on the left side. He pointed out confusion about the building Sushila Bhavan and Shiv Sagar. He pointed out that there are inconsistencies about the alleged spot of the accident. He pointed out that the scooter was found fallen at a distance of 70 mtrs. from the pool of blood on the concrete slabs. He submits that the Magistrate had correctly concluded that the blood-stained concrete slabs could not be the point of impact because it was beyond the pool of blood. Even the investigating officer had deposed that he did not know whose blood was seen on the concrete slabs covering the gutter. The investigating officer claimed that this was told to him by the Head Constable since the claimant was made to sit on that concrete slab where blood stains were found. Mr. Rao submits that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate all these circumstances before recording the finding of rashness and negligence.

5. Mr. Rao, without prejudice, submitted that there was no proof of the claimant's income; in any case, the evidence was that the claimant earned only Rs. 733/- per month. He submitted that the Tribunal misdirected itself in ignoring these findings and holding that notionally the claimant must have been earning Rs.4,000/- per month. He presents a contradiction in the claimant's statement about being a salaried employee and electrical contractor. He submitted that proper pleadings do not back up the evidence. When a specific case of income is pleaded, there was no question of falling back on notional income or relying on the notification about minimum wages. He submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive and does not represent just compensation. He relied on National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi - (2017) 16 SCC 680 to submit that the determination of compensation has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record regarding the claimant's age and income, and only after that apposite multiplier can be applied.

6. Mr. Rao submitted that there is apparent duplication, and the Award of Rs. 75,000/- towards loss of amenities of life was not called for after an exorbitant award was made towards loss of income due to the disabilities. He submits that there is no proper evidence about awards under other heads.

7. Mr. Rao distinguished Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. vs. Joaquim Xav