The standard of proof in motor accident claims cases is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

M. S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Sanman Keny for the Appellants and Mr Akshay Naik for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Respondent No.1-owner/driver of Pleasure scooter (allegedly the offending vehicle) though served, was neither present nor represented.

2. The widow, aged mother, and the minor son-Sejal George Fernandes challenge the impugned Judgment and Award dated 9th May 2019, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (Tribunal), dismissing their Claim Petition No.80/2014 for alleged failure on their part in proving the owner/driver's rashness and negligence. However, after recording this finding, the Tribunal did not bother to record any finding on other issues, particularly on the quantum of compensation. In doing so, the Tribunal acted in breach of various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this Court requiring the Courts and Tribunals to avoid shortcuts and decide all issues that fall for determination.

3. In Bimlesh & Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited (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 Section 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. Therefore, the two issues that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows :

(A) Is the Tribunal's finding on rashness and negligence legal and proper legal and proper?

(B) If Respondent No.1 was indeed rash and negligent, what is the quantum of compensation payable to the Appellant-Claimants?

6. On the issue of rashness and negligence, the very approach of the Tribunal is contrary to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject. The Tribunal, instead of relying upon and applying 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, chose to rely upon the decision in Pukh Raj Bumb vs. Jagannath Atchut Naik and ors. 2014 4 MLJ 447 to hold that the Appellants had not proved the issue of rashness and negligence.

7. The Tribunal also relied upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Prem Lata Sukla and ors - 2007 (4) ALD 85 (SC) and Oriental