The main legal point established in the judgment is that in motor accident claim cases, the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt should not be applied, and the touchstone of preponderance of probability should be considered.

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Caveator is on record. With the consent of parties, appeal is taken up for hearing and disposed of.

2. Challenging the finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the container lorry bearing Regn.No.TN28AH7357, insured with National Insurance Company Limited and the consequential liability, to pay compensation of Rs.12,32,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim till deposit and costs, awarded to the legal representatives in MCOP No.951 of 2011 dated 07.06.2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, [2nd Additional District Judge], Poonamallee, instant appeal has been filed, by the insurance company.

3. According to the legal representatives of the deceased, that on 11.01.2011, about 6.00am, on CFS Gateway Yard, Manali, a container lorry, bearing Regn.No.TN28AH735, and insured with National Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, the appellant herein, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against, Seetha Kannan, S/o. Mariappan. He sustained grievous injuries and died. A case in Crime No.14 of 2011, under Section 304 (A) IPC, has been registered on the file of Manali Police Station.

4. Contending inter alia that at the time of accident, the deceased aged 28 years was a driver and earned Rs.1,000/- per day, legal representatives have filed MCOP No.951 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, [2nd Additional District Judge], Poonamallee, claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-, under various heads.

5. Before the tribunal, Insurance company has disputed the involvement of the container lorry bearing Regn.No.TN28AH7357. According to the National Insurance Company Limited, as per Ex.P1, FIR, it was a case of hit and run. The Police, who could not trace the vehicle, has falsely implicated the container lorry bearing Regn.No.TN28AH7357. Without prejudice to the above, Insurance Company has disputed the age, avocation, income of the deceased and compensation claimed under various heads.

6. Wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1, has reiterated the manner of accident. She has not witnessed the accident. PW2, is stated to be the Sub Inspector of Police. On the side of the claimants, Ex.P1, First Information Report, Ex.P2, Postmortem Report, Ex.P3, Death Certificate, Ex.P4, Legal Heir Certificate, Ex.P5, Policy, Ex.P6, Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, Ex.P7, Licence of the lorry driver, Ex.P8, charge sheet, Ex.P9, licence of the deceased, Ex.P10, Family Card, Ex.P11, Bank account statement, have been marked.

7. RW1, is the law officer of National Insurance Company Limited. Ex.R1, Confession statement of lorry driver, Ex.R2, true copy of the policy, Ex.R3, Advocate's Notice, Ex.R4, letter of the lorry owner and Ex.R5, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, have been marked on the side of the Insurance Company.

8. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the claims tribunal held that driver of the lorry bearing Regn.No.TN28AH7357 and insured with National Insurance Company Limited, was negligent in causing the accident. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the respondents/claimants, the tribunal quantified the compensation as Rs.12,32,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till deposit and costs, as hereunder:

Loss of contribution to the family	Rs. 8,80,000/-
Funeral and transportation expenses	Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of love and affection to parents	Rs. 2,00,000/-
to brothers	Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of articles and damages to clothes	Rs. 2,000/-
Total	Rs.12,32,000/-

9. Though, Mr. D. Bhaskaran, learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited, appellant herein, reiterated the very same defence taken before the claims tribunal, and on appeal, contended that the claims tribunal has failed to note that, as per E