In motor vehicle accident claims, negligence must be established on a preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of strict evidence does not negate the claim.

ORDER :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 13.4.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.980 of 2004.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.9.2004 in the evening, on the way near village Kamana while the respondent no.1 was driving the scooter, suddenly a dog came on way and thus the scooter driver suddenly applied the brakes and the deceased fell down and received serious injuries on head and died during the treatment. That the said accident happened due to the rash and negligent, speedy driving done by the respondent no.1 and that since he could not control the vehicle and since he was driving the vehicle at a high speed endangering human lives the said accident took place leading to the death for which the claim petition was filed before the MACT at Mehsana.

3. Heard learned advocate for the appellants.

4. Learned advocate for the insurance company since elevated to the bench of this Court, on 12.12.2024, notice was issued to the insurance company and the same was served, but none appears for the insurance company.

5. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that name of the driver and number of the vehicle is not mentioned in the FIR, filing of charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle is of no use and therefore, the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the claim petition. Taking approach by the learned Tribunal is unsolicited to the provisions of law. The claimant who has filed the claim petition under the MV Act is required to prove the case on principle of preponderance of probabilities and is required to prove the evidence in a manner that the fact should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Filing of charge sheet has not been challenged by the scooter driver or the respondent insurance company during the proceedings of the claim petition itself, which itself is sufficient to believe involvement of the vehicle in the road accident. Merely, delay in filing the FIR or not mentioning the name of the driver or vehicle number in the FIR is of no significance. If the investigation carried out by the police remained unchallenged at the end of the driver or the insurance company and proves that vehicle is involved, the learned Tribunal on his own caprices and whims cannot come to the conclusion that the vehicle is not involved in the road accident.

6. At this juncture, judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajani Sahoo & Ors. Rendered in SLP No.29302 of 2019, in para 7 to 9 reads as under:-

“7. As regards the reliability of charge sheet and other documents collected by the police during the investigation in motor accident cases, this Court in the case of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., held in paragraph No.27, thus : -

“27. Another reason which weighed with the High Court to interfere in the first appeal filed by Respondents 2 & 3, was absence of finding by the Tribunal about the factum of negligence of the driver of the subject jeep. Factually, this view is untenable. Our understanding of the analysis done by the Tribunal is to hold that Jeep No. RST 4701 was driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2 when it collided with the motorcycle of the appellant leading to the accident. This can be discerned from the evidence of witnesses and the contents of the charge-sheet filed by the police, naming Respondent 2. This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes [Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by sta