The standard of proof in MACT claim cases is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The liability of registered owners under the Motor Vehicles Act extends even after the transfer of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT

1. The advocate for the appellant has withdrawn his appearance. The Registrar sent notice to the appellant before leave was granted to the advocate to withdraw his appearance. The appellant is, however, not present in the Court today.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2016 in Claim Petition No.60/2011, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) determined that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 48,000/- provided she was to establish that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the Mahindra Jeep driver (respondent no.1 herein). However, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not prove such rashness and negligence and dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal.

3. In this appeal, therefore, three issues arise for determination:-

(a) Whether the appellant had succeeded in proving that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 (driver of the Mahindra Jeep)?

(b) If yes, what would be the just compensation payable to the appellant?

(c) Is respondent no.2 (State) not liable to pay any compensation because the State already auctioned the Mahindra Jeep to respondent no.3?

4. On the first issue, it is necessary to note that an FIR was registered against respondent no.1, alleging the commission of offenses under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint based on which this FIR was lodged had also alleged that respondent no.1, under the influence of alcohol and without putting on the headlights at night, drove the Mahindra Jeep in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life. The complaint alleges that when respondent no.1 reached Green House, Colva, he dashed against the oncoming Honda Activa Scooter bearing registration no.GA-08-B-8188 proceeding from Margao to Colva taking a turn towards right due to which the rider and the pillion sustained injuries.

5. Further, in this case, the claimant who was riding pillion on the above referred Honda Activa Scooter examined herself and deposed to the genesis of the accident. Likewise, Peter D'Silva, the rider of the Honda Activa Scooter, also examined himself in this matter and deposed to the genesis of the accident.

6. In contrast, respondent no.1, the driver of the Mahindra Jeep, failed to step into the witness box and depose in the matter. Since respondent no.1 had taken a specific defense that the Honda Activa Scooter had come on the wrong side, the minimum expected from respondent no.1 was to step into the witness box and make good this defense. However, he failed to do so. But the Tribunal failed to draw any adverse inference against respondent no.1 for his failure to do so.

7. The Tribunal has gone almost entirely by the sketch to the panchanama (Exh. X1 Colly). Therefore, apart from the issue of whether this document has been proved following the law or not, the Tribunal, in this case, was not justified in simply attempting to interpret this sketch without having due regard to the testimony of the two eyewitnesses, i.e., the claimant AW1 and Peter D'Silva (AW11).

8. It is necessary to note that Peter D'Silva had instituted Claim Petition No.60/2011 and had deposed in the said claim petition. However, in the present claim petition, he tendered the same affidavit and the cross-examination, which was admitted in evidence as Exh.99. Therefore, since he was already cross-examined in Claim Petition No.60/2011, in this claim petition, there was no cross-examination on behalf of respondent no.1.

9. Suffice to mention that this is a case where two eyewitnesses have deposed and demonstrated how the driver of the Mahindra Jeep - respondent no.1 was responsible for the accident. The police, after investigation, registered FIR against respondent no.1, alleging the commission of offenses under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. Respondent no.1 failed to step into the witness box and establish that he was not negligent, but Peter D'Silva was negligent.

10.