In motor accident claims, the absence of eyewitnesses does not negate the possibility of compensation; the standard of proof is based on preponderance of probability.

ORDER :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.01.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.89/2013 titled as Smt. Maina Saini Vs. Sitaram & Ors., whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant has been dismissed.

2. As per the brief facts of the case, due to death of one-Bablu in a road accident, the claim petition No.89/2013 was filed by the widow of the deceased (Smt. Maina Saini) for claiming of compensation. The claim petition was dismissed vide impugned order on the ground that no eye-witness was produced to prove the fact of accident.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that learned Tribunal has erred in not relying on the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimant. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has failed to consider the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that eye-witness is not required in the MACT petitions arising out of road accidents. Learned counsel further argued that civil cases like MACT petitions are decided merely on the basis of preponderance of evidence unlike criminal cases. Learned counsel prays that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside and claim petition be allowed in favour of the claimant-appellant.

4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has drawn attention of this Court on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Gurdeep Singh Vs. Bhim Singh and Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 507 and Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1665/2019 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.33757/2018, decided on14.02.2019.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company submits that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that in MACT petitions the burden of proving the fact of negligence is on the claimant and in the instant matter the claimant has failed to prove her case before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, no interference in the impugned judgment is warranted by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of Minu B. Mehta & Anr. Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & Anr., reported in (1977) 2 SCC 441, Surender Kumar Arora and Anr. Vs. Manoj Bisla & Ors., reported in (2012) 4 SCC 552 and Lachoo Ram & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 254

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant on the ground that no eye-witness was produced on behalf of the claimant to prove the factum of accident. The learned Tribunal has held that evidence submitted by claimant is not reliable and sufficient to prove the factum of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as AW1-Omprakash and AW2-Maina Saini were not the eye-witnesses.

9. It is true that in criminal cases, the burden of proving the guilt against the accused is always on the prosecution and the standard of proving the case of the prosecution is beyond the shadows of reasonable doubt. However, in civil matters, a case can be proved on the basis of preponderance of evidence. In catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the MACT petitions may be disposed of on the basis of material available on record.

10. In the case of Gurdeep Singh (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below:-

"16. It is a matter of common knowledge that in motor road accident's claim cases, it is very difficult to gel witnesses. The eyewitnesses are also not readily available. Even if available, they are not easily ready and willing to come