In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Tribunals must evaluate evidence, including the testimony of injured victims, without demanding absolute clinical precision, and failure to properly analyze evidence warrants a remand for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT :

P.M. Manoj, J.

The captioned appeals are preferred against the common award dated 13.03.2023 passed in O.P.(MV) No. 2740 of 2017 and O.P.(MV) No. 2730 of 2017. O.P.(MV) No. 2740 of 2017 was preferred by the mother and sisters of the deceased, Vipin Das, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.08.2017. O.P.(MV) No. 2730 of 2017 was preferred by the pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No. TN 74 P 1303, which was driven by the deceased, Vipin Das, and who sustained injuries in the said accident.

2. The grievance voiced in both these appeals is against the dismissal of the respective claim petitions by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, vide the common award dated 13.03.2023. The short facts of the case are as follows:

3. On 11.08.2017, at approximately 12:00 noon, while the deceased in M.A.C.A. No. 2639 of 2023 and the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 2819 of 2023 were travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-74-P-1303 from Karakkonam to Parassala, a KSRTC bus hit the motorcycle near Kodavilakom, Karumannoor desom, causing serious injuries to both riders. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC bus, bearing registration No. KL- 15-7939 (RAC 772), by the 2^nd respondent. In connection with the incident, the Parassala Police registered a criminal case as F.I.R. No. 1442/2017. The 1st respondent was the owner of the KSRTC bus, and the 3rd respondent was its insurer.

4. The deceased in M.A.C.A. No. 2639 of 2023, who was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident, succumbed to his injuries. He was 23 years old, worked as a mason, and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. It was contended before the Tribunal that he was the sole breadwinner of the family, and the appellants, who are his legal heirs, lost his love and affection, thereby claiming a total compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs.

5. On the other hand, the appellant in M.A.C.A. No. 2819 of 2023 was the pillion rider of the motorcycle. He sustained a traumatic brain injury, including subdural haemorrhage (SDH), inter-hemispheric bleed, and haemorrhagic contusion in the right basifrontal region. He underwent treatment initially at the Taluk Hospital, Parassala, and subsequently at the Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. At the time of the accident, he was 18 years old and a bright student. The injuries severely disrupted his studies and caused him immense mental and physical agony, for which he seeks a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs.

6. The first respondent resisted the claims by filing a written statement, contending that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the KSRTC driver in causing the accident. The age, occupation, and income of both the deceased and the injured appellant were disputed, and the compensation claimed was asserted to be exorbitant. However, it was admitted that the KSRTC bus had valid insurance coverage with the third respondent.

7. In the written statement filed by the third respondent insurer, the manner of the accident as alleged by the claimants was denied. It was instead contended that the deceased, Vipin Das, was riding the motorcycle (bearing registration No. TN-74-T-1303) at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. According to the insurer, the deceased moved to the wrong side of the road while attempting to overtake the bus and collided with the KSRTC bus, which was