Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act are decided based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than the strict proof required in criminal trials; voluntary production of the vehicle by the owner is sufficient to establish its involvement in the accident.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 03.02.2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) Panchmahals at Godhra (who shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.207 of 2014, the appellant – opponent no.3 therein – National Insurance Company Ltd., has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Heard learned Advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas, for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr. A. C. Nanavati, for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and learned Advocate Mr. H. K. Choksi for the respondent nos.5 and 6. Perused the original record and proceedings.

3) It is the case of the original claimants – respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, that on 14.01.2014 the deceased Ishwarsinh was going by foot at side of the road from Godhra to Shahera. When he was passing from the place of accident, the opponent no.1 riding motorcycle bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-S-9000 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the deceased. Resultantly the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the claimants had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record has partly allowed the claim petition.

4) The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that initially the complaint was filed against unknown vehicle and registration number of vehicle was given subsequently. The father-in-law of the deceased appeared and his vehicle is involved and planted subsequently though FSL Report clearly reveals that there were break marks of four wheeler though two wheeler is produced and on the ground of involvement the present appeal is filed and submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in considering the aforesaid vehicle. He has further submitted that the said vehicle at all is not involved and hence requested to exonerate the Insurance Company by allowing the present appeal.

5) Learned Advocate for the respondents have submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and after appreciating the evidence produced on record awarded proper compensation. Hence, they have requested to dismiss the present appeal.

6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C , reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand , reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence based on preponderance of probabilities. The claimant no.1 has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 28 wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the claim petition. The learned Tribunal has perused the complaint at Exhibit 32, panchnama at Exhibit 33, Inquest Panchnama at Exhibit 34, PM Report at Exhibit 35, Vehicle Panchnama at Exhibit 36, statement of owner of vehicle at Exhibit 37, and after perusing the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that due to negligence of the driver of motorcycle the alleged incident took place.

7) The present appeal is filed on the ground of involvement of the vehicle, it is true that complaint was filed against