The standard of proof in motor accident claims is the preponderance of probabilities, allowing established ocular testimony to support findings of negligence against the driver.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J .

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance company against the award dated 26.05.2025 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant- Insurance company was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.06.2024, Ashish Goyal alongwith Ankit Goyal (respondent No.3), Lovish Bansal and Nitin Goyal were coming from Chandigarh to Bathinda in Car bearing registration No. PB-03BM-9964 (hereinafter referred as `the offending vehicle’). At that time, car was being driven by Ankit Goyal(respondent No.3) rashly and negligently. Then at about 6.00 a.m, when they reached near Gurdev Dhaba, Tapa, respondent No.3 was driving the car rashly and negligently and the car turned turtle out of control and fell in the ditches of the fields and struck with the tree. The car was on very high speed and Ankit Goyal (respondent No.3) was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and he has no control on the same, but he narrated the story to police in the DDR to the effect that stray animals suddenly came on the road and respondent No.3 suddenly applied brakes and the car got out of control and went into the fields and thereafter struck with trees. It is further averred that this itself speaks that the above said car was on very high speed and Ankit Goyal was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and he has no control on the same. The accident took place due to sole negligence of respondent No.3 Ankit Goyal. The police of Police Station Tapa Mandi, in connivance with respondents, did not register the FIR and only registered the DDR on the sole statement of respondent No.3. Claimants also met the Police officials, but all in vain and police did not register the FIR against the driver. The said occurrence was witnessed by Sukhdarshan Kumar son of Chet Ram, Varinder Kumar son of Bhim Sain and Subhash Kumar son of Tarsem Chand and they duly reported the matter to the police, but police did not take the correct statement of the witnesses, rather they took the signatures on blank papers with the assurance that they will register the FIR against driver, but they only registered the DDR on the sole statement of respondent No.3. It is further averred that Ashish Goyal, occupant of the offending vehicle, received multiple injuries on his person and died at the spot. It is categorically pleaded that the accident took place due to sole negligence of respondent No.3, while driving the offending vehicle. The dead-body of the deceased was subjected to post-mortem examination at Civil Hospital Barnala on 03.06.2024

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statements denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether Ashish Goyal son of late Rajinder Goyal died due to accident caused by respondent No.3 Ankit Goyal, while driving Car bearing registration No.PB-03BM-9964 rashly and negligently? OPP.

2. If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to seek any compensation. If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents?OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.3, alleged driver of Car No.PB03BM-9964 was not holding a valid driving license to drive the said vehicle at the tim