In a motor accident claim case, the claimant must establish the fault of the respondent by evidence, and the standard of proof is preponderance of probability.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. This statutory appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is filed by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 11.05.2012 passed by the MACT, Jorhat in MAC Case No. 51/2009.

2. The brief fact of the case was that on 17.03.2009 at about 9 PM, when the claimant was travelling by riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. NL-02-E-2432, suddenly a cow appeared before the motorcycle and when he applied break, the motorcycle collided with another vehicle bearing registration No. AS-03-D/4570, because of rash & negligent driving of the vehicle No. AS-03-D-4570. Learned Tribunal after having conducted an enquiry and having heard the parties dismissed the claim petition by the impugned order.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant preferred the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel Mr. C.M. Mahanta for the appellant and Mr. R. Goswami, for the respondent were heard.

5. The claimant in order to establish the claim examined himself and another witness, projecting him to be an eye witness and also proved documents being Ext.3, a police report, Ext.4 & 5, two relevant GD entries pertaining to the accident in question and accident information report, Ext.7 besides, other documents. The claimant and his witness, PW-2, stated that while the claimant was proceeding by driving his motorcycle, the alleged offending vehicle No. AS-03-D-4570 hit the motorcycle of the claimant from behind and as a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries.

6. The accident involving two vehicles and the claimant having sustained injuries were not in dispute. In order to prove the accident, the claimant proved Ext.3, police report as well as Ext.4 & 5 being two GD entries. Ext.3 was apparently issued by police subsequently on the basis of the Ext.4 & 5. As per Ext.4, upon receiving information from an un-known person, that a vehicle collided with a scooter causing injuries to the rider of the scooter, Ext. 4 GD entry was made at 9.10 PM and ASI N. Handique was entrusted to make a preliminary enquiry. Immediately, the said police officer, proceeded to the place of occurrence and after making a preliminary enquiry, made another GD entry (Ext.5) at 9.45 PM, wherein it was mentioned that when the rider of the motorcycle was proceeding towards RRL side, the alleged offending vehicle was coming from RRL side and the rider of the motorcycle, for his own fault hit the rural taxi, which was coming from the opposite direction and fell down and the injured was immediately shifted to hospital. It was mentioned in the said report, that the accident occurred due to fault of the rider of the motorcycle himself. Besides the said police report, MVI report regarding damage of the motorcycle was also proved and marked as Ext.6, which demonstrated, that the headlight of the motorcycle and front mudguard and other parts in the front side of the motorcycle was damaged. There was no damage on the backside of the motorcycle. On the basis of the above evidence, more particularly, the damage in the motorcycle and the police report (Ext.5), learned Tribunal came to the finding that both the claimant and PW-2 deposed falsely regarding the accident, and narrated a concocted story before the Tribunal, which was belied by Ext.5 and also the Ext.6, the MVI report.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits, that in a motor accident claim case, tribunal should not ask for strictest proof and if some evidence is brought on record to substantiate the claim, in absence of any contrary evidence, the Tribunal should accept the evidence brought on record by the claimant keeping in view the social object of the legislation. There is no dispute about the proposition, that in claim case before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the claimant need not prove the facts by evidence beyond doubt and standard of proof in such a case cannot be higher than that of preponderance of probability. In the instant case, as indicated above, there was no d