In motor vehicle compensation cases, proof of negligence and liability is determined on a preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

MFA.No.103152/2014 is filed by the insurer and MFA.CROB.NO.100054/2024 is filed by the claimants, challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed in MVC.No.611/2013 by the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Belgaum.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before the Tribunal is that:

It is the case of the claimant that on 02.03.2013 in the night the deceased Lakhan Parasharam Chougale was proceeding to Bastawad village on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA.22/EF-9267 and he was riding the said vehicle with care and caution on service road, within a the limit of Halaga village, in front of Pandiyan road lines office at 11.30 pm, the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.KA- 22B-2267, drove the vehicle from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries at the spot.

4. Claimant No.1 – father of the deceased lodged the complaint to the police about the accident. He was unaware of vehicle Registration of vehicle, hence he did not furnish. The police officials investigated the case and it appears that Maruthi Ramaling Patil i.e. son of R.C. holder of the vehicle, given a statement before the police that on the date of accident, he was also traveling in the offending vehicle and stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, coming from opposite direction. On the basis of the said information, the investigating officer proceeded with further investigation and after the conclusion of the investigation, driver of the said offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A and 201 of IPC read with Section 197 of MV Act.

5. The claimants further contented that deceased was aged about 19 years and he was hale and healthy and he was working as a mason & doing coolie work and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. He was unmarried and was contributing his income to the family. Due to his untimely death, the claimants have been suffering mentally and financially. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.15 lakhs.

6. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and in her statement she has admitted the fact of the accident and according to her contention, the deceased was riding the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and due to his negligence, accident had taken place. Hence she is not liable to pay the compensation. The insurer has filed detailed objection denying the contentions of the claimants. She denied all other averments stated in the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. It is further stated that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case just to claim compensation. There are no sufficient materials to show the involvement of the vehicle. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased and there are no materials to show that deceased had driving license to ride the motor cycle. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further contended that its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and not holding of valid and effective driving license by the driver of the vehicle. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:

1. Whether petitioners prove that Mr. Lakhan Parashuram Chougale,