IMPORTANT POINT
The standard of proof in motor accident claim cases is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 29.08.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-01 (Central-District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT No. 455/18, titled as Smt.Oma v. Rudra Nand Jha & Anr., dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the appellant herein by holding that the appellant has failed to establish that the deceased-Shri Ramesh Kumar had died on account of the injuries sustained in the accident in question.

2. The above-mentioned Claim Petition was registered on the Detailed Accident Report (in short, `DAR'), which stated that on 30.05.2017, at around 08.00 a.m., the deceased-Ramesh Kumar was going towards Gopal Tower, East Patel Nagar. When he reached near Chawla Park, an E-Rickshaw bearing registration no.DL-10ER-0756 (hereinafter referred to as the `Offending Vehicle'), came from behind and hit him. He fell down on the road and got injured. He was rushed to the RML Hospital. Admittedly, the deceased died on 16.08.2017.

3. In support of her claim, the appellant, who is the widow of the deceased-Ramesh Kumar, examined herself as PW-1. She stated that the deceased was working as a Safai Karamchari in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (in short, `NDMC') and had met with an accident on 30.05.2017 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the Offending Vehicle by respondent no.1 herein. The appellant also examined Mr. Jodha Singh (PW-2) as an eyewitness to the accident. He stated that he saw the Offending Vehicle hitting the deceased. Though he could not remember the complete registration number of the Offending Vehicle, he stated that the registration number of the Offending Vehicle was `0756'. He stated that the public persons took the deceased to the hospital. He further stated that the Police only asked for his name and address but did not record his statement. He stated that he could not see the driver of the Offending Vehicle and, therefore, could not identify him. In his cross-examination, he further stated that the deceased suffered head injury due to the accident.

4. The Impugned Award records that the respondent no.1, that is, the driver-cum-owner of the Offending Vehicle in question, had not disputed the involvement of the Offending Vehicle in the accident nor the fact that he was driving the Offending Vehicle at the relevant date and time. However, still disbelieved the testimony of the PW2 only because he had stated that he had not seen the driver of the Offending Vehicle and could not identify him.

5. In my opinion, once the respondent no. 1 admitted that he was driving the Offending Vehicle, the testimony of the PW2 could not have been disbelieved by the learned Tribunal; in fact, it stood corroborated by the testimony of the respondent no. 1 himself.

6. Respondent no.1 entered the witness box as RW1. He stated that on 30.05.2017, he was coming from Farid Puri and going to Gopala Tower to park his vehicle. As he reached Chawla park corner where a DMS booth is situated on the pavement, he found one car parked in front of the DMS booth. He states that in order to avoid collision with the car, he turned the Offending Vehicle towards the left side and his front wheel struck against the stone on the pavement and the vehicle came to a halt. Suddenly he realized that one person was lying on the road behind the Offending Vehicle. He stated that the vehicle had not collided with the person who had fallen behind the Offending Vehicle on the road. He further stated that as some people known to the deceased came to the spot, he left the spot of the accident. In his cross-examination, he stated that he could not say whether the deceased collided with the Offending Vehicle or not.

7. The learned Tribunal has disbelieved the statement of the respondent no.1 and held the same to be an afterthought and a concocted story, however, at the same time, has also disbe