The standard of proof in motor accident claims cases is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Courts/Tribunals must avoid shortcuts and decide all issues that fall for their determination.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Padgaonkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 (driver), Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 (owner) and Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company).

2. The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and award dtd. 7/1/2021 by which the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's Claim Petition No.112/2017 on the ground that the Appellant failed to establish the rashness and negligence on the part of the Honda Civic car driver. However, after recording this finding, the Tribunal did not bother to decide the issue of the quantum of compensation. In doing so, the Tribunal acted in breach of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, requiring the Courts and the Tribunals to avoid shortcuts and decide all issues that fall for their determination.

3. In Bimlesh and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited1 (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 applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in Sec. 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 must dispose of all issues one way or the other while deciding the claim petition.

4. Therefore, 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 neglect to decide 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. Accordingly, in Bimlesh (supra), the matter had to be remanded because not all issues were decided in one go. 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. The Tribunal has also adopted an incorrect approach when deciding the issue of rashness and negligence. Instead of following and applying the relatively recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 , the Tribunal chose to rely on Suresh alias Sudesh Foll Dessai Vs Suresh s/o Shamba Velip and others, First Appeal No.17 of 2003 dtd. 26/8/2010 and Narayan Kalangutkar and another Vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others, 2012 ALLMR (2) 244 decided by the learned single Judges of this Court. Even the decision in Pukh Raj Bumb Vs Jagannath Atchut Naik and others, 2014(4) Mh. LJ 447 does not or possibly could not refer to most of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above. Therefore, even in deciding the issue of rashness and negligence, the Tribunal must adopt the approach indicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred to above.

6. In all cases above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the approach of the Courts/Tribunal