The court ruled that compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are assessed on preponderance of probabilities, where judicial findings on negligence based on eyewitness testimony are sufficient to uphold a Tribunal's award.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri. Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri. Manzar Ali Khan for the claimant-respondents.

2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents no.6 and 7, accordingly, the Court has heard the appeal in their absence.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 assailing the award dated 26.03.2016 passed in Claim Petition No.108 of 2012 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Lakhimpur Kheri wherein in a death case, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 24,76,256 alongwith 7% interest payable per annum to the claimant-respondents.

4. The claimant-respondents no.1 to 5 filed a claim petition bearing No.108 of 2012 stating therein that on 26.02.2016 at around 6.45 in the evening, Natthu Lal was walking from his village on the Mohammadi Gola Marg towards Gola. As he reached near Ghirawa Bend, the offending Maruti Car bearing number U.P. 34-A/1827 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit Natthu Lal and he expired on the spot. It was also stated that Natthu Lal was a teacher and he was earning a sum of Rs. 36,829/- per month and on account of his death, his heirs and representatives filed the claim petition. The claim petition came to be contested by the owner driver and the Insurance Company by filing their separate written statement.

5. In so far as the owner and driver are concerned, they stated that the accident did not take place with the vehicle whereas the driver denied that the accident was an outcome of his rash and negligent driving. The owner further stated that his vehicle was duly insured and its driver also had a valid and a subsisting driving licence, thus if at all any award is passed, it would be the responsibility of the Insurance Company to indemnify the same.

6. Upon the exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues. However, while dealing the issue regrading rash and negligent driving, the Tribunal took note of the statement of P.W.3, who was an eye witness as well as the documents relating to the accident such as the First Information Report, charge-sheet, medical report, post-mortem report, salary slip as well as the Insurance Policy and the licence and came to the conclusion that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Car. The Tribunal went on to compute the compensation and awarded a sum of Rs. 24,76,256/- alongwith 7% interest which is under challenge.

7. Shri. Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . Before any amount can be awarded, it is the duty of the Tribunal first to ascertain that the accident was an outcome of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle involved in the accident, in case if the negligence is not proved, then no amount can be granted towards compensation.

8. Elaborating his submissions, it is urged that in the instant case, there is a clear testimony of the P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 the son of the deceased, who clearly stated, that they were not present at the accidental side. It is pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that in the statement made by the P.W.2, he had stated that he was present at the accidental site and thus he attempted to project that he was an eyewitness. On the contrary, if the statement of P.W.3, namely, Dinesh Kumar is seen, he stated that he was present and had seen the accident and thereafter he had called the wife of the deceased in