In civil proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability, and claimants are not required to prove the accident beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof and the standard of evidence differ from criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Divyesh A. Joshi, J.)

1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the instance of the appellant-Insurance Company and is directed against judgment and award dated 9th May, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot in M.A.C.P. No.649 of 2001 by which the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the opponent Nos.1 to 6 herein (original claimants).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarized as under:

2.1 The appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is the original respondent No.3 in the main proceedings (for the sake of convenience and brevity, the original respondent No.3 shall hereinafter be referred to as the appellant). The opponent Nos. 1 to 6 are the original plaintiffs (shall hereinafter be referred to as “the respondent Nos.1 to 6”) and the respondent Nos.7 and 8 are the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 (shall hereinafter be referred to as the respondent Nos.1 and 2). The Code of Civil Procedure shall hereinafter be referred to as “the Code” and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall hereinafter be referred to as “the M.V. Act”.

2.2 On 19.02.2001, the deceased was coming towards Rajkot on his Hero Honda Motorcycle being its registration No.GJ-17-B- 1346. When he reached at the place of incident, the driver of the truck bearing its registration No.GJ-3-U-6365 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased sustained severe injuries and taken to the hospital for treatment where he succumbed to the said injuries. Thereafter, a complaint also came to be registered in this regard. On the strength of the registration of the complaint, the investigation was ensued and, thereafter, charge-sheet came to be submitted before the competent court.

2.3 The respondent Nos.1 to 6-original claimants have filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Rajkot being Motor Accident Claim Petition No.649 of 2001.

2.4 Thereafter, the trial was commenced, and at the end of the trial, after completion of recording of evidence and the arguments, the Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment and award.

2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 9th May, 2011, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Tiwari appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and the view adopted by the Tribunal is erroneous, arbitrary and illegal and, therefore, the impugned judgment and award is required to be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Tiwari has further submitted that the Insurance Company has filed an application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act to raise certain defenses against the claim petition which was allowed by the concerned Tribunal and, therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to raise defense as per the relevant provisions of law. Mr. Tiwari has also submitted that the record itself shows and suggests that the deceased was driving the motorcycle, and due to his own fault, his motorcycle was slipped, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Mr. Tiwari has further submitted that, thereafter, immediately the deceased was taken to the hospital and the person who took him to the hospital has made a statement before the medical officer of the hospital that the deceased himself was driving the motorcycle and due to his own fault, his motorcycle was slipped and he sustained injuries. Mr. Tiwari has submitted that pursuant to the said information, a Janvajog entry was also registered before the concerned police station. Learned advocate Mr. Tiwari has submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that throughout, during the course of treatment, the deceased was in an unconscious statement of mind and, therefore, the Investigating Agency has never got the opportunity to rec