In motor accident claim cases, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. Criminal proceedings are not binding on the Tribunal, which must independently assess evidence. Heavy vehicle operators bear a higher duty of care, and an insurer must provide substantive evidence to successfully rebut established eyewitness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J.

The appellant–Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal challenging the award passed in M.C.O.P. No.99 of 2017, by judgment dated 28.02.2025, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Periyakulam.

2.Facts of the case:

2.1. On 06.08.2017, at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased Arun Kumar was going from Thomaiyarpuram to Begampur, Dindigul, on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. TN 59 AL 6356, belonging to his friend, for buying chicken. After purchasing chicken, while he was returning from Begampur, Dindigul to Thomaiyarpuram, proceeding in a north-to-south direction and keeping to the left side of the Madurai Road, when he reached near Murugan Temple at Saveriyarpalayam at about 9.45 a.m., a private service bus bearing Registration No. TN 49 BA 8089 came from the opposite direction, i.e., south to north, driven by its driver, D. Ganesh Babu, in a rash and negligent manner, without honking the horn and without observing traffic rules, and dashed against the motorcycle ridden by the deceased Arun Kumar. Due to the forceful impact, the deceased was thrown off the motorcycle and his head was crushed under the wheel of the bus. Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Dindigul, where he was declared brought dead. Therefore, a case in Crime No.326 of 2017 was registered against the driver of the insured bus on the basis of the complaint lodged in connection with the occurrence.

2.2. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.27,00,000/-. The appellant insurance company filed a counter statement denying the manner of accident and disputing the negligence attributed to the driver of the insured bus. According to the insurance company, it is the deceased who rode the two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, without wearing a helmet, overtook other vehicles, crossed the white line and dashed against the insured bus, and thereby solely responsible for the accident. Hence, the insurance company sought exoneration from liability.

2.3. On the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked to prove the manner of accident and the quantum of compensation. On the side of the insurance company, R.W.1, the Inspector of Police, was examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

3. Finding of the Tribunal

3.1. The learned Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, fixed the liability on the appellant-insured vehicle bearing Registration No.TN49 BA 8089 and awarded a sum of Rs.18,19,200/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization under the following heads, by order dated 28.02.2025.

3.2.Challenging the said award, the appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeal mainly on the aspect of negligence.

4.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RW1 and Exhibits R1 to R3 and erroneously came to the conclusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant-insured bus driver. According to RW1, the Investigating Officer categorically reported that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. The learned Tribunal Judge ought to have discarded the evidence of PW2 and PW4; however, the same was not properly appreciated. Even assuming that the evidence of PW2 and PW4 is taken into consideration, the manner in which the accident occurred itself would indicate contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The said aspect was also not properly considered by the learned Tribunal Judge. Hence,