The principle of preponderance of probability in motor accident claims and the standard of proof required for establishing a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, J.

1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 28th November, 2015, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pulwama (for short “Tribunal”) in a Claim Petition titled as Khazir Mohammad Bhat and Another vs. Showkat Ahmad Bhat and Others, thereby directing appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 4,91,000/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization to the claimants/respondents, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. A claim petition, as perusal of the file would bring to the surface, was filed by claimants/respondents 1 and 2, before the Tribunal on 19th December, 2007, averring therein that deceased, Mudasir Ahmad Bhat S/o Khazir Mohammad Bhat R/o Batapora Dadsarah Tehsil Tral, aged nearly 19 years, died in an accident, which took place on 19th November, 2007, near Peer Mohalla Khalil situated on Kangalura-Tral road, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle, bearing Registration No. JK-13-5657, which was insured with respondent-Insurance Company. Claimants/Respondents 1 and 2 prayed for grant of compensation of Rs. 13,30,000/- along with interest.

3. Respondent-Insurance Company resisted the claim petition before the Tribunal, amongst others, on the grounds that deceased, who was shown travelling in offending tractor at time of accident, was not covered under the insurance policy and only driver can travel in the tractor as an insured person, as such, respondent no. 4 had no contractual obligation to indemnify owner on account of death of deceased as he was not covered under insurance contract; and that respondent no. 1, driver of offending tractor, was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident.

4. The Tribunal, taking into consideration pleadings of parties, settled five issues for determining claim petition, which for facility of reference are reproduced hereunder:

1. Whether ton 19.11.2007 respondent No. 1 was driving the tractor bearing registration number JK-13-5654 from Kangalura towards Tral rashly, negligently an carelessly, due to which it turned turtle and the deceased Mudasir Ahmad fell down it and died on spot? OPP

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the respondent insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation as because the deceased is not covered by the policy of insurance? OPR-4

4. Whether the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the respondent no. 1 to drive the tractor who was not having a valid and effective license on the material date? OPR-4

5. Relief.

5. Claimants, in support of their claim petition, produced and examined four witnesses before the Tribunal; besides claimant/respondent no. 1 himself. Respondent Insurance Company produced one witness in support of its stand. Appellants/ respondents, however, as perusal of record divulges, did not opt to cause appearance and put up their stand before the Tribunal. In terms of impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimants/respondents entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 4,91,000/- along with 6% interest per annum to be paid by appellants.

6. Heard and considered.

7. Learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, after reiteration of facts of the case as ingeminated in instant Appeal, has stated that appellant had been set ex-parte by the Tribunal, followed by issuance of impugned ex-parte Award against appellants and non-contesting respondents and even no summon or notice was served upon appellants. He also states that award impugned is illegal as it is against the facts.

8. Next contention of learned counsel for appellants is that appellant no. 1 was not driving the tractor as he was not driver of tractor and that the story alleged by respondents/ claimants in their claim petition is totally false. It is also contended by learned counsel that there is no proof produced before the Tribunal by claimant concerning ra