The standard of proof in motor accident matters is one of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Smt.Munni Devi – widow, Raj Kumar – son, Aman – minor son and Pinki – minor daughter of Sh.Surinder Kumar, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, had brought a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondents i.e. Sanjeev Gogna – driver and owner and The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – insurer of Swift Dzire VDI car bearing registration No.PB-10ER-3940 (hereinafter referred to as the offending car) claiming compensation. In that claim petition, the claimants had arrayed Savitri Devi, mother of deceased as respondent No.3.

2. As per the case of the petitioners/claimants, Surinder Kumar deceased aged about 42 years was working as a Finishing Incharge with M/s Eveline International, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana getting Rs.30,762.50 Ps. as salary per month; on 17.6.2016 after the working hours were over, Surinder Kumar left his factory for returning home located at Ashok Nagar-C, Ludhiana on motorcycle bearing registration No.PB10CV-6932 (hereinafter referred to as the ill-fated motorcycle); he was being followed by his nephew Pawan Kumar and brother-in-law Vinay Kumar on separate motorcycle bearing No. PB-10EW-5117; at about 8:30 p.m., when they had reached at over bridge near Gulati Dhaba, GT Road, Ludhiana, then the offending car being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed came from behind and struck the motorcycle of Surinder Kumar; resultantly, he fell down on the road along with the motorcycle and suffered injuries; he was taken to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared as dead.

An FIR No.138 dated 18.6.2016 for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A, 427 IPC was registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. As such the claimants have brought the claim petition in question before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).

3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondents No.1 to 3 put in appearance and filed separate written replies. In the written reply submitted on behalf of respondent No.1, he took various preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of the claim petition contending that the claimants had not approached the Court with clean hands and had suppressed true facts from the Court; no accident had taken place with the offending car of answering respondent; he was having a legal and valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 – insurance company; a false FIR was registered against the answering respondent; as a matter of fact on 17.6.2016 at about 8:30 p.m. respondent No.1 along with his father Mohinderpal Gogna and driver Mani was going from their factory at Dhandari Kalan to their residence at Salem Tabri, Ludhiana via elevated Jagraon bridge; respondent No.1 saw one motorcycle rider lying on the road near Gulati bridge; on observing that respondent No.1 told his driver to stop the car; thereafter respondent No.1 on humanitarian grounds took the motorcycle rider to side of the road with the help of 3-4 passersby; keeping in view the serious condition of motorcycle rider, respondent No.1 along with other people took him to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana in an Auto Rickshaw; as father of answering respondent No.1 was suffering from kidney problem and a urine bag was attached to him, respondent No.1 send his father along with the driver to his residence; the motorcycle rider was got admitted in emergency ward of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for treatment; after checking the doctors declared that the motorcycle rider had died; in the meanwhile respondent No.1 took out mobile phone from the pocket of motorcycle rider and informed his relatives and acquittance, who reached at the hospital and rather attacked the respondent No.1. Thereafter, the police registered a false FIR against respondent No.1. On merits, respondent No.1 denied the assertions in the claim petition and reiterated the stand