Claimants must establish negligence in motor vehicle accident cases based on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. Despite notices having been served on respondents no. 4 and 5 as per the report dated 28.08.2024 nobody has put on appearance on their behalf.

3. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter finally.

4. Under challenge is the judgement and award dated 12.04.2024 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Sultanpur in Claim Petition No. 264 of 2017 In re: Manorama and others vs Shitla Prasad and others . By the said award learned tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and has awarded certain compensation.Being aggrieved instant appeal has been filed.

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the fact as set forth by learned counsel for the appellants is that one Shri Ram Kailash, who was working as a Khalasi on a truck bearing no. UP 44 AT 0404, died on 27.05.2017. The claimants, of which claimant no. 1 is the wife of the deceased, the claimant no. 2 is daughter of the deceased and claimant no. 3 is the mother of the deceased, filed the claim application before the learned tribunal. The case set forth by the claimants before learned tribunal was that the deceased Ram Kailash was working as a Khalasi and was in receipt of Rs 6000 per month paid towards his wages and Rs 3000 towards his fooding. He was going on the truck in question when driver of the said vehicle asked Ram Kailash to clean certain parts of concrete that had got stuck in the back wheel of the truck. Shri Ram Kailash died on account of an accident involving a truck and died on the spot. The claimants filed the post mortem report as well as FIR that had been lodged. The police filed chargesheet in which driver of the truck namely Shri Shitla Prasad had been named.

6. Learned Tribunal had framed an issue as to whether on 27.05.2017 at 11:30 AM the deceased was cleaning the back-wheel of the truck no.UP 44 AT 0404 and on account of the negligence of the driver, died.

7. Learned Tribunal has considered the said issue as per the averments made in the written statement that had been filed on behalf of the driver and owner of the vehicle (one written statement filed jointly on their behalf) and also considered the contradiction as appeared in the said written statement of an averment having been made in paragraph 4 of the written statement that the deceased died on account of an accident involving "a truck" and the averment made in paragraph 5 that he died on account of the negligence of the truck driver and the learned Tribunal was of the view that on account of the negligence of the Driver which resulted in the accident, the truck Driver namely Shitla Prasad did not inform the police. The said incident itself indicates that it was on account of negligence of the driver himself i.e. Shri Shitla Prasad that the said accident occurred. Learned trial court has also considered the chargesheet which has been filed against the driver concerned and thus arrived at a conclusion that the accident had taken place from the said vehicle on account of negligence of the driver concerned and has awarded the compensation after considering the other issues including the quantum of compensation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following grounds to challenge the impugned judgment namely:

(a) that the claim application having been filed under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle, 1988 which itself indicates that an application for compensation arising out of accident of