IMPORTANT POINT
In motor accident claims, the Tribunal should assess evidence based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the absence of eyewitnesses does not negate the existence of sufficient evidence to establish negligence.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI, J.

1. Instant appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 17.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sojat, Camp Jaitaran, District Pali in motor accident claim case number 69/2001, whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed.

2. According to the assertions made in the claim petition, on 01.07.2001 at about 10:50 pm, on the public road between a petrol pump located at Nimaaj bypass and Khinawadi village, driver of bus no. RJ-19-P-2979 Mehboob Ahmed was driving the bus rash and negligently as well as at a high speed. The bus collided with a tractor number RJ-19-R-3050, which was moving ahead of the bus and on the correct side of the road. As a consequence of the collision, the tractor driver Satyanarayan Singh @ Sattu fell down from the tractor and died when the tractor, along with the trolley, ran over him. Offence against respondent no. 1 Mehboob Ahmed was registered u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC by the police and after investigation charge sheet was filed against him before the court of competent jurisdiction.

3. According to pleadings, at the time of death, deceased was aged about 22 years and stated to be employed as a driver for the same tractor owner for the past 6-7 years, earning Rs. 3000 per month as salary along with an additional amount for expenses. In addition to this, he also had experience in farming. After deducting his personal expenses, he used to earn a net income of Rs. 3000 per month. He left behind a widow and mother; both of whom were dependent on him.

4. The driver, owner and subsequent purchaser (respondent numbers 1 to 3) in their joint written statement disowned responsibility for the accident by asserting that there was no accident with the bus however, they stated that the bus was insured with the respondent no. 4 insurance company.

5. The insurance company in its separate written statement pleaded that the vehicle involved in the accident was not being driven under control and employment of the insured nor did the bus have a valid permit. According to the respondent, the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, citing his negligence as the cause. Additionally, it was alleged that both the drivers did not possess valid and effective driving licenses. Furthermore, it was pleaded in the alternative to be a case of contributory negligence. It also denied the fact that involved bus was insured with them. All other factual averments made in the claim petition were denied for want of knowledge.

6. The Tribunal vide award dated 17.10.2003 dismissed the claim petition. In reaching its verdict, the Tribunal held that “Since there was no eyewitness to the accident, the principle of “res ipsa loquitur” is applicable. However, only the F.I.R was available on record to serve as evidence and solely relying on F.I.R, it does not sufficiently prove the negligence and rashness of the respondent bus driver. Additionally, notice under Section 133 was issued to the subsequent buyer of the bus, instead of the registered owner. Therefore, even based on the reply received, the respondent no. 1 cannot be definitively proved to be the driver of the vehicle involved at the time of the accident.” Further, the Tribunal observed that “claimants failed to prove the site plan of the scene as evidence. Consequently, without the site plan, the tribunal lacks insight into the actual circumstances of the accident, making it impracticable to apply the principle of “res ipsa loquitur”. As a result, the claimants were unable to substantiate that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bus driver or that the driver was operating the bus under the employment and control of the registered owner. Nonetheless, it was established that the vehicle was insured with respondent no. 4 insurance company.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that Tribunal without considering the charge sheet filed against driver of the offending