The importance of evidence recorded before the Tribunal over the contents of the First Information Report and the standard of proof required in motor accident claims, emphasizing the preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Khan and Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsels appearing for the respective appellants as well as Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company.

2. These two appeals under Section 173 of the M.V. Act are taken up together because they relate to the same accident.

3. The appeals are against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2015 passed by the MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No.122/2012 and the judgment and order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No.123/2012.

4. This is a classic example of a single Tribunal having two different views in respect of the same accident.

5. On 30.05.2012, Binod Ray and Nitya Charan Ray were travelling in a scooter bearing Registration No.AS-19/4069. The scooter was driven by Binod Ray and Nitya Charan Ray was a pillion rider. The said scooter was knocked down by a truck. Binod Ray died on the same day whereas Nitya Charan Ray died after a couple of days. Therefore, Smti. Rupeswari Rabha Ray, the wife of Binod Ray had lodged an FIR before police alleging the truck bearing Registration No.AS-18-9360 had caused the accident.

6. Police started investigation into the matter. During investigation, a truck bearing Registration No.AS-18-9361 was seized by police from the place of the accident. Ultimately, police field the charge sheet holding that the truck bearing Registration No.AS-18-9361 had caused the accident.

7. In the meantime, Rupeswari Rabha Ray being the wife of the deceased Binod Ray filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The claim petition was registered as MAC Case No.122/2012.

8. Subsequently, Smti. Dipali Ray, the wife of the deceased Nitya Charan Ray also filed a claim petition before the Tribunal which was registered as MAC Case No.123/2012.

9. In the case of MAC Case No.122/2012, the Tribunal held that it was not proved that the accident was caused by the vehicle no.AS-18-9360. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the claim petition.

10. In the case of MAC Case No.123/2012, the Tribunal agreed with the claimant that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle no.AS-18-9361. The Tribunal awarded compensation in favour of Smti. Dipali Ray, the wife of the deceased Nitya Charan Ray.

11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

12. The only question involves in this appeal is as to whether the accident caused by vehicle no.AS-18-9360 or by the vehicle no.AS-18-9361?

13. The vehicle no.AS-18-9360 was first referred to by Rupeswari Rabha Ray when she had lodged the FIR before police.

14. Mr. Khan pointed out that the FIR was not written by Rupeswari Rabha Ray. It was written by a person called P. Ahmed upon the dictation of Rupeswari Rabha Ray. Mr. Khan further pointed out that police seized the vehicle bearing registration no.AS-18-9361 from the place of occurrence and after investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the said vehicle. According to Mr. Khan, the learned Tribunal in the case of MAC Case No.122/2012, had erroneously oriented itself and arrived at an incorrect finding.

15. The learned counsel Mr. Khan has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chamundeswari and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.6151/2021).

16. In paragraph 8 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that when there is evidence available in the record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. The Apex Court further held that if any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report.

17. In MAC Case No.122/2012, the claimant examined an eye witness, named Pulen Ray and Sri Jitesh Barman, the investigating officer of the case.

18. Pulen Ray stated before the Tri