IMPORTANT POINT
The principle that in motor accident claims, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the case on the preponderance of probabilities, and the Tribunal is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence, allowing for a more flexible approach in determining liability and compensation.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Present appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati in MACP No.373/2010 by which the Claim Petition of the claimant is allowed and the compensation was granted to the claimants at the tune of Rs.20,19,254.00.

3. This appeal is presented by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award. (Parties shall hereinafter referred as per their original nomenclature in the claim petition).

4. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as under : A] On 26/07/2009, at about 4.45 pm the petitioner was riding his bike bearing No.MH-27-AG-5766. When he reached near Morshi police station, at the relevant time one TATA Sumo bearing No.MH-22- D-2272 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and came toward wrong side and dashed against the bike of the petitioner. Due to the severe dash, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. As per contention of the claimants, the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the TATA Sumo driver who has driven it in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations. Regarding the said accident, crime was registered against the TATA Sumo driver vide Crime No.136/2009 on 26/07/009 for the offence punishable under Ss. 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for short).

5. The said offending vehicle is owned by the opponent Nos.1 and 3 and validly insured with opponent No.2. As the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Sumo driver, therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

6. It is further the contention of the claimants that due to the severe dash he sustained grievous injuries, immediately he was removed to the Sub-district Hospital, Morshi. He was also treated in a private hospital namely Yadgire Superspeciality and Critical Care Unit, Amravati and then to Central India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur and Sancheti Hospital, Pune. Due to the accidental injuries he sustained 80% permanent disablement. Due to the permanent disablement he lost his earning capacity. At the relevant time of accident he was running a business and was earning Rs.17,650.00 per month. As the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Sumo driver which is owned by the opponent Nos.1 and 3 and validly insured with opponent No.2 he claimed the compensation from opponent Nos.1 to 3.

7. In response to the notice, opponent No.1 resisted the claim petition by filing written statement vide Exhibit 18. The opponent No.1 has admitted the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. It is further admitted that the accident occurred in front of police station Morshi on 26/07/2009, but denied all other contentions. Alternatively he submitted that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the opponent No.2 - Insurance company and hence Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The Insurance Company has also resisted the claim of the clamant by filing written statement vide Exhibit 17. The defence raised by the Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle bearing No.MH-22-D-2272 was not at all involved in the accident and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Besides the said defence, Insurance company has also denied the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner and also denied the disability sustained by the claimant.

8. After considering the rival pleadings of the party, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) framed the necessary issues. The claimant has adduced the evidence. No evidence is adduced by the Insurance company. In support of the contention, opponent No.1 has also not adduced any evidenc