The court held that in motor accident claims, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of probability, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the claimants must provide sufficient evidence to establish their claim, but they do not need to meet the strict standards of proof required in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ’the Tribunal’) in Motor Claim Case No.248/2015 whereby an amount of Rs.14,61,000/- (including conventional heads) was awarded as compensation on account of death of Badan Singh @ Vadana in the accident occurred on 01.08.2012.

2. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and after hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petition of the claimants-Respondents and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.14,61,000/- under various heads in favour of the claimants-respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company submits that the accident occurred on 01.08.2012 and the FIR was registered on the next day i.e. on 02.08.2012 against the unknown vehicle in which the number and type of the vehicle was not disclosed. Counsel submits that without any basis charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. Counsel submits that mere submission of charge-sheet is not enough to allow the claim petition filed by the claimants. Counsel submits that though the claimants cross-examined AW-2 Navalkishor who claimed himself as eye-witness of the accident but his conduct was so unnatural that he did not take any steps to take the injured in hospital to save his life. Counsel submits that even no steps have been taken by him to lodge FIR and he has not disclosed the number of motor cycle of the deceased. Counsel submits that even in the Mechanical Report of the offending vehicle, the signs and symptoms of accident were not mentioned but these facts were overlooked by the Tribunal while deciding issue No.l and the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents. Counsel submits that the deceased was not holding any permanent salaried job even then the Tribunal has awarded future prospects to the tune of 50% in violation of the judgment of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157.

5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Kokila Bai & Anr. Vs. Abdul Bahav & Ors., reported in 1 (2005) ACC 458 (DB) and the High Court of Orissa delivered in the case of Mataji Bewa & Ors. Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jena & Anr., reported in 1994 ACJ 1303.Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant insurance Company and submits that during the course of the investigation, statements of the eye-witness AW-2 Navalkishor was recorded and he disclosed the number of the offending vehicle to the police. Counsel submits that this witness was not related to the deceased or his family members, so there was no reason or occasion available before the Tribunal to discard the testimony of this witness. Counsel submits that the Mechanical Report of the motor cycle of the deceased was prepared by the police during the course of investigation and the same was also produced before the Tribunal vide Ex.10 which indicates that the motor cycle was damaged because of the said accident. Counsel opposed the submissions made by counsel for the appellant-insurance Company that the Mechanical Report of the offending vehicle does not indicate any signs or symptoms of the accident as the same has not been produced on the record of the Tribunal. Counsel submits that after thorough investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal has not committed an error while deciding issue No.l in favour of the claimants-respondents.

7. Learned counsel, however is not in a position to