In motor accident claims, claimants must prove negligence based on preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, to establish liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

This order shall disposed of two appeals tilled above, as both of them have arisen against same award dated 18.10.2016 passed by Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (in short ‘the Tribunal’).

2.1. In MACP No.103 of 2016 titled ‘Smt. Moni and others vs. Hemant Bhardwaj and others’ filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation of Rs. 79,15,184/- has been awarded by the Tribunal on account of death of one Vijaypal, an ITBP Constable, against the driver-cum-owner & insurer of Swift car bearing Registration No.DL-13CA-8486.

2.2. Insurer of the car has filed FAO-646-2017 alleging that involvement of the car No.DL-13CA-8486.in causing the accident is not proved and it fact, it was a hit & run case and that the claimants have filed the claim petition in collusion with the driver–cum-owner of the, so as to extort the money from the insurance company. On the other hands, the claimants have filed separate FAO-7529-2017 seeking enhancement in compensation amount.

3. Trial Court record was called and with the assistance provided by counsels for both the filed, the same has been perused.

4.1. As per the case pleaded by the claimants, on 06.02.2016, Vijaypal (since deceased) was going to his duty on his Motor Cycle No.HR-14F-8469, followed by his brother Satpal on a separate motorcycle. At about 5.15 AM, as Vijaypal reached in the area of village Badli while driving his motorcycle at moderate speed & correct side of the road and was crossing the chowk of Gurgaon road, the offending car bearing registration No.DL-13CA-8486 came at the very high speed, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 and hit the motorcycle of Vijaypal directly. Vijaypal sustained multiple grievous injuries. Respondent No.1 i.e. driver–cum-owner of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot along with his vehicle. Satpal, the brother of Vijaypal along with Sandeep son of Rajpal resident of village Badli and other passerby brought Vijaypal to General Hospital, Jhajjar, whereas, he was declared deed. It was further claimed in the petition that Sandeep, the eyewitness had noted down the registration number of the offending car and also saw respondent No.1. It was alleged that accident had taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The income and age of the deceased was also disclosed in the petition and compensation of Rs. 60 lakh was claimed. Insurer of the vehicle was impleaded as respondent as respondent No.2.

4.2. The respondent No.1 i.e. driver-cum-owner of the offending car in his written statement alleged that a false FIR had been lodged against him in collusion with the Police and in fact, there was no fault on his part in causing the accident, as it was caused due to own negligence of the deceased. It was further pleaded that he was having a valid and effective driving license to drive the car. The car was duly insured with respondent No.2 and so, in case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that that the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, then it is the insurance company/respondent No. 2, who is liable to pay the same.

4.3. The Respondent N: 2 – insurance company in its written statement raised some preliminary objections. On merits, it pointed out that FIR was lodged on the date of accident itself against unknown driver of an unknown vehicle and so, there was great probability implantation of the vehicle in collusion with the respondent No.1 and the Police. It was further alleged that there was no eye witness to the alleged accident and that offending vehicle had been later on planted. Further alleging the claimed amount to be highly exorbitant and without any basis, prayer was made for dismissal of the petition.

4.4. Necessary issues were framed including the issue No.1 on the point of negligence.

4.5. The Tribunal by taking into account the evidence produced by the parties, decided the issue of negligence in favour of the claimants by holding that accident too