In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, and parties must provide adequate evidence to establish negligence.

Pravin S. Patil, J.

1. The original claimants in a motor accident case preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.802/1999 decided on 5.6.2006, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the present appellants.

2. According to the appellants, on 19.5.1999, deceased Satish Meshram was proceeding with his Luna bearing No.MH- 31-AD-4408 from Rani Durgawati Chowk to Kamptee Road, Nagpur. At that time, the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo bearing registration No.MH-31/Z-2970 coming from opposite direction in a high speed has lost his control and gave dash to the Luna of the deceased, resulting to which, deceased Satish was died on the spot in the said accident.

3. One Harbansh Singh lodged the police complaint of this motor accident to the Police Station, Panchpawali and accordingly crime was registered, against the driver of the Tata Sumo vide Crime no.223/1999. It is further stated that the said vehicle was owned by the respondent no.1 and insured with the respondent no.2-insurance company.

4. In view of this motor accident, the appellants in the capacity of legal heirs has filed the claim petition claiming thereby the compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Satish Meshram caused in the motor accident.

5. Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the appellants entered into the witness box and pointed out that due to motor accident the death was caused and thereby they are entitled for the compensation. On behalf of respondents no one examined before Claim Tribunal to prove their defence in the matter.

6. In the background of above said factual position, the learned Tribunal has decided the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition, has relied upon the police case papers and particularly on the spot panchanama. On the basis of the said documents, the conclusion has been drawn by the Tribunal that accident had taken place western side of the road. Hence, it was concluded that Luna driver was negligent in driving the vehicle and was caused accident. It is further recorded that the vehicle of the deceased was on the left side of the road on the western portion which according to him shows that Luna was proceeding from North-South and gone to the extreme western side i.e. to the wrong side and thereby accident took place in the matter.

7. As such, from the perusal of the judgment of the Claim Tribunal, it is clear that only on the basis of spot panchanama, the learned Tribunal has drawn the conclusion that the deceased was negligent and, therefore, the present respondents were exonerated to pay any compensation in the matter and dismissed the claim petition.

8. In the present appeal, both the parties have relied upon the following judgments:

(1) Mangla Ram .vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others , reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656 ;

(2) Prabhavathi and others .vs. The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan, Transport Corporation , reported in MANU/SC/ 0295/2025,

(3) National Insurance Company Limited .vs. Deepali Raju Mohite and others , reported in 2023 (6) ALL MR 665.

(4) Jiju Kuruvila Vs Kunjujamma Mohan , reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 ,

(5) The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sau Shantabai , reported in 2024 ACJ