In motor accident claim proceedings, the burden of proof is governed by the 'preponderance of probability' rather than strict criminal standards. Once the claimants provide prima facie evidence of the accident and the offending vehicle's involvement, minor investigative delays or witness inconsistencies do not invalidate the claim.

Judgment on Board

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No.28/2012 whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimants and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of this appeal are that on 25.06.2011, the non-applicant No. 1, driving Truck bearing registration No. CG-04 -HC-3214 (for short, ‘offending vehicle’), allegedly in a rash and negligent manner, struck a motorcycle driven by the husband of the claimant No.1, Gurudayal Sahu, resulting in the death of her husband and injuries to the claimant. A report of the accident was lodged with Police Station Dharsiwan, District Raipur. Based on the report, a case was registered against non-applicant No. 1, Mukesh Pandey, and a charge sheet was filed under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The claimants have filed claim application before the learned Claims Tribunal stating therein that at the time of the accident, the deceased was posted as Assistant Grade-2 in Chhattisgarh State Power Company Limited, earning a monthly income of Rs.62,082/-. With 12 years of service remaining, the deceased was expected to earn approximately Rs.90,000/- per month considering future promotions and an estimated 40% increase in salary, which would have supported the claimants. It was further pleaded that the deceased was 48 years of age on the date of the accident and prayed for compensation of Rs.1,19,60,000/- from the non-applicants jointly and severally.

4. Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 denied the claim, stating that on the date of the accident, non-applicant No. 1 was holding a valid driving license and operating the vehicle legally. The offending vehicle was insured from 12.09.2010 to 11.09.2011, and according to the insurance terms, non-applicant No. 3 was responsible for third-party risks and property damage. They further contended that the First Information Report mentioned a vehicle without a number and “Mahamaya” written on it, and non-applicants were not liable for payment of compensation.

5. Non-applicant No. 3/appellant herein, the insurance company, denied the allegations, asserting that the deceased was himself responsible for the accident and did not possess a driving license. It further stated that the vehicle allegedly involved was seized six months after the incident, was being used without fitness and permits, and was parked at a private company at the time of the accident. Accordingly, the claimants’ application was liable to be dismissed and it be exonerated to satisfy the liability to pay the amount of compensation.

6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.75,91,488/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization and fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of commendation upon the Insurance Company i.e. the appellant herein.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the offending vehicle was