The burden of proof, assessment of compensation, and the application of preponderance of probabilities are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/original respondent no.3-Insurer impugns the judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.102/2017 by way of this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

2. The respondent nos.1 to 5 instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No.102/2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad contending that on 09.12.2015 deceased Raju Mohite alongwith pillion riders were proceeding from Aurangabad towards Shirdi on motorcycle bearing registration no.MH-20-AM-3494. At about 19.10 hours while they were passing from vicinity of village Shindi Sirasgaon, a Tavera Jeep came from opposite direction which was driven in rash and negligent manner and thrashed the motorcycle. Resultantly, the riders on the motorcycle were thrown off the vehicle and suffered injuries. The driver of the motorcycle Raju Mohite and one of the pillion rider Sominath Belkar suffered fatal injuries, whereas Deepak @ Bhima Sopan Kanade suffered injuries. The incident was reported by the jeep driver to the police resulting into registration of Crime No.193/2015 against deceased Raju Mohite / Motorcycle rider. It is the contention of the claimants that, although the accident occurred due to the fault on the part of the Jeep driver, the police authorities on the basis of wrong information given by Jeep driver registered offence against deceased. Subsequently, the injured Deepak @ Bhima Sopan Kanade had visited Daulatabad Police Station to lodge FIR against respondent no.1, but his complaint was not accepted. He posted his complaint to the police station, however no cognizance was taken. It is further contention of the claimants that deceased was aged about 32 years. He was running Saloon/Men’s Parlour in Garkheda Parisar at Aurangabad and use to generate income of Rs.2,73,800/- per annum. The claimants were dependent on his income. As such, respondents/owner, driver and insurer of the Tavera Jeep bearing registration no.MH-42-A-0077 are liable to compensate the loss suffered by the claimants.

3. The claim was contested by respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the Jeep, thereby denying the negligence on the part of respondent no.1 i.e. Jeep driver. The respondent no.3-insurer denied material contentions in the claim petition and pleaded that since accident in question is result of self negligence of the deceased, they have no cause of action to raise the claim. The Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. The claimant no.1-Deepali filed her evidence affidavit at Exhibit-22 and also relied on the testimony of CW-2-Minakshi Ohalkar/Tax consultant to prove income of the deceased. In order to prove the accident and negligence on the part of respondent no.1-Jeep driver claimants relied upon evidence of pillion rider of motorcycle i.e. Deepak @ Bhima Sopan Kanade recorded in connected Motor Accident Claim Petition No.49/2017 filed by the legal heirs of the another deceased Sominath Belkar arising out of same accident. The certified copy of his evidence is placed at Exhibit-38. Pertinently, respondents have not recorded any evidence in support contention that the motorcycle rider was sole responsible for the accident. The Tribunal after taking survey of the submissions advanced by the parties and evidence tender into service, allowed the claim petition and directed respondent nos.1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.47,52,440/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent no.3/insurer has assailed said the judgment and award dated 11.04.2022 in this appeal.

4. Mr. Mundada, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants have relied upon FIR at Exhibit-41 and spot panchanama at Exhibit-42 in support of their contentions regarding accident. Both the documents depict that motorcycle went on wrong side and dash