In motor accident claim cases, liability is determined based on the 'preponderance of probability' rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Once the initial burden of proving the accident's occurrence and vehicle involvement is discharged by claimants, the burden shifts to the insurer to provide evidence of non-involvement.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order

02/04/2026

1. These appeals arise out of a judgment and award dated 19.06.2019 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge No.1) Bayana, Bharatpur in MAC Case No.82/2013. The appellant- Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) has preferred S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4915/2019 assailing the impugned judgment and award and the appellants- claimants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) have preferred S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1278/2020 for enhancement of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21.02.2013, Bhagchand (since deceased) was going on a motorcycle to Sarsena. At about 03:00 PM, when Bhagchand reached at Sarsena Mod, a Maruti Car bearing registration No. RJ-05-C-2768, being driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle, as a result, Bhagchand succumbed to injuries on 25.02.2013.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 53,19,000/- under different heads. The non-claimants respondents i.e. driver and owner of the Maruti car appeared before the learned Tribunal and denied the involvement of the said vehicle as well as the liability to pay any kind of compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition and denied the occurrence of the accident as also its liability to pay any compensation.

4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. The claimants examined three witnesses Lata (AW-1), Narendra Sharma (AW-2) and Santosh Kumar Meena (AW-3) and also produced documentary evidence (Exhibit-1 to 15-A) in support of their case. On the other hand, owner and driver of the Maruti car and also the Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence. After evaluating the evidence, adduced by the parties, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that the offending vehicle has been falsely involved in the accident as the number and make of the alleged vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR and no such vehicle was found at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that the damaged Maruti car was seized on 01.07.2013, whereas the Mechanical Inspection Report is dated 01.06.2013. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the fact that initially FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle, which was untraceable by the police, resulting into filing of closure report of the case and further erred in awarding the compensation merely on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the investigating authority.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that initially, a closure report was proposed by the investigating authority. However, upon a protest petition filed by the claimants, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, District Bharatpur, directed for re-investigation of the matter. After re-investigation, a supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the investigating authority, wherein the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC were found to be made out against the driver of the offending vehicle.