The court established that negligence must be evaluated based on the preponderance of probabilities, upholding claims when sufficient evidence supports the victim's account.

JUDGMENT :

(ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.)

All these appeals arise from a common award dated 30.11.2010 in O.P.(MV) Nos. 562 of 2004, 227 of 2004, and 630 of 2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The respective claim petitions were submitted by the respective claimants seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to them in a motor accident on 22.08.223.

2. According to them, the accident occurred when the Motor cycle ridden by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 227/2004, carrying his wife and child, who are petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 562/2004 and O.P.(MV) No. 630/2004 respectively, it was hit by another motorcycle bearing registration No. KL-4/G-686 ridden by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The claim petitions were submitted in such circumstances.

3. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy for the motorcycle that hit the claimant's vehicle. However, they disputed the negligence as well as the quantum of compensation.

4. The evidence in these cases consists of oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3 and documentary evidence as Exts.A1 to A14 from the side of the claimants. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants could not establish the negligence of the 1st respondent in riding the motorcycle. Accordingly, the claim petitions were dismissed. These appeals were submitted challenging the order dismissing the respective claim petitions.

5. Heard Sri. P.C. Suresh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Smt. Raji T. Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent in M.A.C.A Nos. 1822 of 2011 and 1718 of 2011, Smt. Deepa George, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent in M.A.C.A. No. 1672 of 2011.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the finding of the Tribunal, to the effect that the appellants failed to establish the negligence on the part of the respondents, is erroneous.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent-insurance company would point out that, there are absolutely no materials to establish the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent and hence, no interference is necessarry.

8. I have carefully gone through the records. The police registered Ext.A14 FIR in connection with the incident, and after investigation, they filed Ext.A13 final report referring the case. The claimants examined PWs 1 to 3 to substantiate the negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent. PW1 is the petitioner in O.P(M.V) No.227/2004, who was riding the motorcycle along with the other claimants. PW2 is the pillion rider and the petitioner in O.P(M.V) No.562/2004 and PW3 is an independent witness. On carefully going through the depositions of PW1 and PW2, it can be seen that even though in their proof affidavits the manner in which the accident occurred has been mentioned in detail, their version of the accident was not seriously challenged when they were cross- examined by the respondents. As far as the cross-examination of the PW1 is concerned, it was confined to the refer report submitted by the police. In the cross-examination of PW1, not even a suggestion was put to him highlighting any falsity in the narration of the accident he made in the chief examination. Regarding the cross-examination of PW2, it is to be noted that, apart from a suggestion that the accident did not occur and no injuries were sustained to her, no other questions were asked. PW3 was an independent witness. In chief examination, he also clearly described the manner in which the accident occurred. However, his cross- examination was confined to the question of whether the police called him to record his statement and whether