Claimants in motor vehicle accident cases must meet the burden of proof on a preponderance of probabilities, and strict evidence rules do not apply, allowing the invocation of the res ipsa loquitur principle.

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. Challenge in this appeal filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to the award dated 4.9.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (CG) (in short 'the Tribunal') in MACT No. 50 of 2015 dismissing the case of the claimants for compensation of Rs. 20,50,000.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.2.2012 one M. Manoj alias Nanni Rao, son of the appellants - claimants, met with an accident when his motor cycle collided with four - wheeler Bolero bearing registration No. CG 04 - HB 3304 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle'). A claim application was filed by the claimants claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,50,000 under various heads, inter alia, pleading that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. It was pleaded that as respondent No. 2 was owner of the offending vehicle and it was insured with respondent No. 3, the respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimants.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., driver and owner of the offending vehicle chose to remain ex parte and it is the insurance company, respondent No. 3, alone which contested the claim case. The insurance company took a plea of contributory negligence and did not specifically deny the occurrence of accident. In support of their contention, claimant - appellant No. 2 examined himself as witness whereas on behalf of insurance company one Surendra Kumar Agrawal, Administrative Officer, was examined who deposed about violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy by owner of the offending vehicle saying that the vehicle was registered as a private vehicle but was being used as commercial vehicle, ambulance. However, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the insurance company on the point of contributory negligence.

4. By the impugned award, the Tribunal dismissed the entire claim of the claimants mainly on the point of non - examination of eyewitness to the accident to prove the fact that it was the offending vehicle Bolero which was being driven rashly and negligently and responsible for causing the accident.

5. Counsel for the appellants submits as under:

That while considering the claim case of the claimants, the Tribunal ought to have taken into account the fact that proceedings of the Tribunal are like summary proceedings and normally, strict rule of evidence should not be insisted upon in claim cases.

In the present case after inquiry, F.I.R. was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle clearly mentioning therein the number of the offending vehicle and once the said F.I.R. was filed in the claim case and duly exhibited, no further evidence is required to be adduced by the claimants showing that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently unless the contrary is proved by any of the nonapplicants.

If the ground taken by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim case is allowed to stand, in most of the cases the claim petition would be dismissed because it is very difficult for the claimant to produce eyewitness to the accident. Likewise, in most of the cases, claimants are dependent on the deceased and normally they are not present at the pla