IMPORTANT POINT
The standard of proof in motor accident claim cases is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than principles beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. The challenge in present appeals is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the common judgment and awards dated 19.04.2002 in Claim Petition Nos. 218 of 2001 and 219 of 2001 respectively, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh. Being dissatisfied with the award, these appeals are at the instance of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “The RSRTC”), wherein the bus owned by the appellant was involved.

2. The version given by the claimants goes like this: On 07.12.1997 at about 11:00 am, on Badwai Majra to Peepli Khera road in the jurisdiction of police station Dungla District Chittorgarh, driver of the RSRTC bus Govind Singh was driving bus No. RJ-27-P-1468 at a very high speed and as a result of his rash and negligent driving, bus got swerved on wrong side of the road and rammed into a motorcycle bearing registration No. RPZ-5633 which was being driven by deceased Radhey Shyam. Another deceased Sohan Lal was pillion rider. The accident resulted in fatal injuries to both the motorcyclist namely, Radhey Shyam and Sohan Lal.

3. The dependents of both the deceased filed claim petitions claiming compensation in various heads from RSRTC and driver of the bus. The RSRTC and driver of the bus hotly disputed their rashness and negligence, however, the Claims Tribunal held that RSRTC bus driver Govind Singh was solely rash and negligent in causing the accident and awarded compensation to the claimants under various heads. The awards have given rise to the appeals by the RSRTC.

4. Learned counsel Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi appearing for the appellant-RSRTC has strongly argued that the Tribunal was not justified in appreciation of evidence produced by both the parties, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and such approach is contrary to the law. The Tribunal has adopted a very casual approach in determining the fact of rashness and negligence of driver of the bus and erroneously concluded that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver.

5. He further contended that the appellant took defence that no eye-witness evidence was produced by the claimants that would establish the rashness and negligence of the bus driver. Conversely, bus driver and conductor of the RSRTC testified themselves during the trial proving that the accident resulted solely from rash and negligent driving of motorcycle driver i.e., deceased Radhey Shyam. There was no justification for the Tribunal to disbelieve the credibility of their statements and discarding their evidence simply treating them interested witnesses. He submits that an adverse inference should have been drawn by the Tribunal against the claimants.

6. In addition to above, the learned counsel has also emphasized that site plan of place of occurrence was not produced and proved in evidence by claimants. The Tribunal therefore, erred in placing excessive and utmost reliance on the same. According to him, only finding page (Ex-1) of the charge-sheet was produced in evidence, instead of complete charge-sheet. Other documents of charge-sheet such as site plan, site description memo, mechanical inspection report of motorcycle, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and so on, were not tendered in evidence at all. The entire charge-sheet was crucial for consideration of application of principle of “res-ipsa-loquitur”. According to him, mere some papers of the charge-sheet cannot be the sole basis for success of claim petition and even Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-6 were not proved by competent and scribe witnesses. Therefore, the approach of the Tribunal was contrary to the law.

7. He lastly submits that findings recorded on the aspect of rashness and negligence of bus driver warrants reversal, therefore, judgment of learned Tribunal be set aside. The app