The burden of proof in claim petitions under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is not as strict as in civil or criminal matters, and claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The principle of res ipsa loquitur places the burden on the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than their own negligence.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Tyagi, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 22.07.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Act) Court No.1, Varanasi passed in MACP No.83 of 2014 (Smt. Chanda Srivastava and others Vs. Shadab Ahmad and others), by way of which, the claim petition of the appellants/claimants was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the appellants before the learned Tribunal for seeking compensation of death of Kripa Shankar Lal, employee of Income Tax Department, who died in a road accident. As per the averments made in the claim petition on 10.10.2013 at about 8:00 pm, the deceased was travelling in car bearing No. UP 65 CT 3842 with Income Tax Officer Shri Himanshu Kumar from Varanasi to Lucknow in connection with official work. The driver of the car was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. When they reached at village Asroga, Police Station-Kudwar, District Sultanpur, the driver of the car lost the balance and control due to high speed seeing a truck, coming from the opposite direction and the car overturned beside the road. In this accident Kripa Shankar Lal and Himanshu Kumar sustained serious injuries. They were taken to the government hospital, Sultanpur, where Kripa Shankar Lal died. The accident took place due to negligence of car driver.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence on record as it did not consider the oral and documentary evidence of claimants in the right perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that the principles of compensation in Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 envisage a beneficial legislation and strict rules to prove the petition are not required. Trial before the Tribunal is summary in nature. Learned counsel submitted that it was night at the time of accident and an unknown truck came from opposite direction and the eyes of car driver were dazzled in the headlights of the truck and since the car driver was moving at a high speed, he could not control the vehicle and it overturned after getting disbalanced. It is next submitted that PW2 Himanshu Kumar is the eye-witness of the accident because he himself was travelling in the car. He has deposed before the learned Tribunal and in his testimony he has specifically deposed that the driver of the car became uncomfortable because his eyes were dazzled in the light of the truck, coming from opposite direction and due to high speed of the car, the driver lost control and car was overturned. Learned counsel submitted that the Tribunal has not believed this part of the evidence, which could not be disbelieved because there is no dispute that PW2 was travelling in the car and he was the best witness to narrate the manner of accident. It is further submitted that the car driver has also appeared before the learned Tribunal as DW2, namely, Salman Ali. He has deposed that an unknown truck hit the car from behind. Learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the basis of the statement made by car driver DW2 without considering the fact that no driver would admit his negligence. Hence, claim petition was wrongly rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that first information report of the accident was lodged at police station against unknown vehicle and during investigation no such vehicle could be traced and investigating officer submitted final report. Hence, the learned Tribunal rightly concluded that the technical inspection report of the car goes to show that all the damages in the car are on the rear side which shows that the car was hit by a vehicle from behind and due to that reason it was overturned on the right side of the road. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the evidence adduced by the appellants and the claim petition was rejected.

6. The co