In motor vehicle accident claims, proof is required on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt; the insurance company's failure to provide witness testimony undermined its defense of false vehicle implication.

ORDER :

PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

The appellant / Insurance Company has filed this Misc. Appeal under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the award dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharampuri, District Dhar (M.P.) in MACC No.13/2020 on the ground of false implication of the vehicle.

2. The facts giving rise to the case are that on 29.10.2019 at around 9:30 PM, the deceased Sunil was going on his motorcycle bearing registration number MP-09-NL-3935 to Indore via Manpur, when he reached near Bhondiya Talab, an Eicher vehicle bearing registration number MP-09- GE-9694, which was being driven by respondent No.5 in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle of the Sunil. The driver of the Eicher dismounted from the vehicle and examining Sunil but when by standers began approaching, he fled the scene towards Pithampur. Thereafter, eyewitnesses to the accident informed the police.

2.1 The respondents No.1 to 4 / claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Sunil. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the insured offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which caused the accident and resulted in Sunil's death. Consequently, a total compensation of Rs.20,15,152/- was awarded to respondents No.1 to 4 / claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company submits that the present case involves false implication of the insured vehicle, with the sole objective of extracting unwarranted compensation from the Insurance Company. He refers to Exh.P-2 (FIR), which was registered on 03.11.2019 for an accident that occurred on 29.10.2019 and points out that the FIR mentions that the accident was caused by an unknown vehicle.

3.1 He further submits that the FIR refers to the statement of one Deepak, who was claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident. Referring to Exh. P-4 (the seizure memo), he states that the vehicle in question was seized only on 26.11.2019, i.e., after 28 days of the accident.

3.2 He then refers to the statement of Abhilash Verma (DW-1), an Officer of the Insurance Company and submits that DW-1 explained the falsity of the claim and the false implication of the vehicle during his deposition.

3.3 The learned counsel also refers to the testimony of Seema (PW-1) and submits that in paras 10 to 12 of her cross-examination, she yielded under the scrutiny of the Insurance Company and contradictions emerged in her statement. She admitted that the FIR does not mention any specific vehicle including the Eicher vehicle. As such, her statement itself demonstrates that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident.

3.4 He then refers to the testimony of the so-called eye witness Sabur (PW-2) and by referring to para 1 submits that although PW-2 stated he informed the police, he was not the person, who lodged the FIR. In para 2 of his statement, he falsely claimed that the Police called him 2-3 times and that he provided them with the registration number of the offending vehicle. However, there is no record with the Police to show that such interaction occurred.

3.5 By referring to paras 6 to 8 of the said witness's statement, learned counsel submits that PW-2 made false statements before the Claims Tribunal.

3.6 In view of the above, learned counsel submits that the conclusion drawn by the Claims Tribunal regarding the involvement of the insured vehic