Motor accident claim cases are to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Ashok Pal Singh.J

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Claimant Appellant under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short "the Act") against the judgment and award dated 22.02.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special Judge, E.C. Act, Unnao in Motor Accident Claim No. 124 of 1997 whereby his claim petition has been dismissed.

2. As borne out from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record the appellant aged about 28 years was a cleaner on truck No. UTZ-4603 on 01.03.1997. While on way to Jagdishpur, District - Sultanpur from Shuklaganj, District - Unnao, a roadside halt was taken by the driver of the aforesaid truck. Thereafter, when the appellant at about 8.30 AM was going on the left side of the road to attend the call of nature a speeding truck bearing no. DL-1G/A-5603 belonging to Respondent No. 1 came from his back side and after hitting him sped away. As a result of this the appellant received serious injuries. Injury report indicates that besides having received certain minor injuries his right leg was crushed. The appellant was immediately taken by his driver on their Truck to Ursala Hospital, Kanpur, from where the appellant was referred and admitted to Regency Hospital, Kanpur on the same day, i.e., 01.3.1997. There a surgical operation was performed on his injured leg and he was subsequently discharged on 13.3.1997. Due to some complication having developed he was again hospitalized. This time he was admitted to R.K. Devi Memorial Hospital in Kanpur on 15.10.1997 where a second operation was performed on his injured leg and after few days of treatment he was discharged on 20.10.1997. The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act alleging the accident to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. DL-1G/A-5603 . The Respondent No. 1, the owner of the aforesaid truck in his reply not only denied the accident to have been caused by his truck but also specifically alleged that on the day of accident his truck was in Etah and not anywhere the place of occurrence.

3. In order to prove his case the appellant got himself examined as APW.2 and inter alia gave an eye witness account of the accident in question. He also got his injury report filed through APW.1 Yadunath Singh Yadav, a pharmacist at Ursula Hospital, Kanpur where his injures had been recorded as a medico legal case.

4. In the form of documentary evidence the appellant filed the carbon copy of FIR lodged by the driver of his truck and a number of documents regarding his treatment together with bills/ receipts for purchase of medicines.

5. From the side of the respondents in support of their stand about their truck being not involved in causing the accident in question only OPW1 Raghubir Singh, the driver of said truck was examined. No documentary evidence was filed by them.

6. The tribunal while passing the impugned award recorded a finding pertaining to Issue No. 2 & 3 that the Respondent's Truck No. DL-1G/A-5603 was at the time of accident in question was effectively insured and its driver was having a valid driving licence. However, while deciding Issue No. 1 pertaining to the factual matrix of the accident it found the same to have not been proved to have been caused by the respondent's aforesaid truck. As a result thereof, the tribunal without making any attempt to calculate the amount of compensation dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.

7. The observations made by the Tribunal while deciding Issue No. 1 against the Appellant show that at the very threshold it found the evidence of OP W. 1 regarding the stand taken by the Respondents to be not convincing. Inspite of the same it appears that the Tribunal was influenced to dismiss the claim on the grounds that a final report had been filed by the Police from which an inference could be drawn that either the Respondent's truck was not involved or that there was no negligenc