The court established that the determination of vehicle involvement in accidents relies on the preponderance of probabilities, and the burden of proof lies with the party denying involvement.

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against judgment and award dated 20.12.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,74,176/- alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 01/02/2016.

2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants inter-alia with the submissions that on 01.11.2015 at about 8:00PM, Yogesh was riding on motorcycle, he was followed by a vehicle being occupied by Umesh Kumar Swami & Balveer, near Dholamaru Bus Station, a jeep/pickup No. RJ-13-GA-3261, which was being driven rashly and negligently came from the wrong side and struck the motorcycle resulting in Yogesh suffering grievous injuries, to which he later succumbed.

3. Based on the said aspect and on account of untimely death of Yogesh compensation was sought.

4. A response was filed by Owner of the vehicle denying any negligence and indicating that if any case of liability is found, the same is that of the Insurance Company.

5. The Driver remained ex-parte and the Insurance Company in its reply, claimed that the Driver of the vehicle was not in possession of a valid and effective driving license and there was no permit and fitness certificate and as such, on account of deliberate violation of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was not liable.

6. The Tribunal framed 5 issues. On behalf of the claimants two witnesses were examined and 13 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was led.

7. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the vehicle. The objections raised by the appellant - Insurance Company pertaining to false involvement of the insured vehicle, to deny its liability were negated and after assessing the compensation based on judgment in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.: (2017) 16 SCC 680 awarded the compensation as indicated hereinbefore.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant raised only one issue that from the circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the insured vehicle was falsely implicated.

9. Submissions were made that the accident occurred on 01.11.2015, the FIR was lodged on 02.11.2015 by indicating that accident occurred from an unknown Jeep, which was pickup type and that the information about involvement of the insured vehicle was given after 22 days to the Police, based on which, the Police after investigation filed the challan.

10. Submissions have been made that there are contradictions in the statements of the PW.2, who is said to be the eye-witness to the accident in relation to the manner in which the accident occurred as well as the involvement of the vehicle and as such, it is apparent that the insured Vehicle has been falsely implicated and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set-aside.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has gone through the judgment passed by the Tribunal.

12. The Tribunal has thoroughly considered the statement of PW2 - Balveer, who was produced as the eye-witness to the accident & has thoroughly dealt with the alleged contradictions in his statements and has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred from the insured vehicle.

13. The submission that in the FIR, the allegations were made that the accident occurred from an unknown jeep-pickup type, whereas, the insured vehicle is a Mahindra-Pickup and, therefore, apparently the vehicle was not involved, has no substance as once the FIR indicates the vehicle as a pickup, as to which make the vehicle is, cannot make any difference.

14. Besides the same, from the Hospital records, which is the first version, the color of the vehicle being white and that it was a pickup has been clearly indicated, which matches with the vehicle in question.

15. Learned counsel also made submiss