IMPORTANT POINT
In motor accident claims, the Tribunal must decide all issues presented, applying a standard of preponderance of probabilities, and cannot dismiss claims based on preliminary findings without addressing the quantum of compensation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr Vaman Kurtikar, learned counsel for the Appellants. The Respondents though served, are neither present nor represented.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dtd. 10/4/2019 dismissing the Claim Petition No.48/2015 on the ground that the claimants, parents of the deceased Albino Fernandes, failed to prove that the accident was caused due to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata tanker in which Albino Fernandes died.

3. After recording a finding that the Appellants failed to prove the rashness and negligence, the Tribunal did not bother to answer other issues, particularly the quantum of compensation.

4. The above approach on the part of the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, namely that the Tribunal should decide all the issues that fall for their determination.

5. In Bimlesh and 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 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.

6. Therefore, normally, 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 shirk deciding 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. 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.

7. Now coming to the issue of rashness and negligence, again, it is clear that the Tribunal failed to consider the law in 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.,(2021) 1 SCC 171. 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.

8. In all cases above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the approach of the Courts/Tribunals when dealing with such matters has to be sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events on the spot or the hardship that the claimants usually face in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident when they were themselves not present at the accident spot. Further, the Courts/Tribunals must be mindful that strict principles of evidence and standard of proof, like in a criminal trial, are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such matters is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Courts/Tribunals have to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts/Tribunals while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with the non-examination of some best