The court clarifies the burden of proof in accident claims, stating that evidence must meet the standard of preponderance of probability rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 against the award dated 06.02.2016 passed by the 2^nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G. in Claim Case No.150/2015, whereby the learned claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in toto filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the appellant/claimant failed to prove the involvement of motorcycle No.CG17-KF-6909 in the accident and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant/respondent No.1- Limsar.

2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 22.12.2013, at about 8:00 pm, deceased- Chameli Bai was returning to her home from village Rampal along with non-applicant No.1 Limsar as a pillion rider on his discover motorcycle bearing registration No.CG17-KF-6909 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle'). However, on way, non-applicant No.1/Limsar drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, pillion rider/deceased fell down from the offending vehicle and died on account of injuries sustained by her.

3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant for the death of deceased seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.9,16,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, deceased- Chameli Bai was aged about 24 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural and labour work, the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, dismissed the claim petition of the claimant. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the approach of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition wholly disbelieving the statements of claimant's witnesses, is contrary to law. He would also contend that the police investigation clearly shows respondent No.1 as a driver of the offending vehicle and the charge sheet, seizure of the vehicle, RC book, insurance policy, and driving licence were not disputed by the respondent No.1. He would also submit that even in the written statement, the respondent No.1 admitted the fact of incident, but the Tribunal has erroneously presumed collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1 for getting compensation without any cogent evidence and ignored the material evidence available on record. He would also submit that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon discrepancies in the vehicle number due to the errors occurred in police investigation and for that, the claimant had to suffer the consequences of those errors. The record clearly reveals that the correct vehicle was seized and released on Supurdnama to respondent No.1, thereby affirming further its involvement. He would next contend that it is a settled law that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and must be decided with a liberal approach. However, in the present case, the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical reasoning, failed to decide all issues, and dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the appellant/claimant failed to prove the vehicle involved in the accident was offending vehicle and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant/respondent No.1- Limsar, which is not inconsonance with the well established principles of law. Therefore, it is respectfully urged that the impugned award be set aside and the appeal be allowed by