In motor vehicle accident claims, the burden of proof lies on claimants to establish involvement of the vehicle based on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimants, who are the wife, sons and mother of the deceased late M.Prabhakar aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.09.2008 passed in O.P.No.799 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "The Tribunal") - cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. The claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased M.Prabhakar in a motor vehicle accident. As per the claimants, the deceased was aged 45 years, working as Manager (MMGS-3) in Deccan Grameena Bank, Hyderabad and was drawing a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month by the date of the accident. On 07.05.2006, the deceased along with his wife, sister and aunt went to Suryapet to attend a marriage in their Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-9-AR-5262. The deceased himself was driving the car and while they were returning to Hyderabad and when reached near kilometer stone No.92/6 on N.H.No.9, the deceased tried to overtake another vehicle which was proceeding in front of their car. In the meanwhile, a lorry bearing No.AP-7-W- 2149 driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from its behind and hit the Maruthi Car. Due to the sudden hit by the lorry, the Maruthi Car went towards its right side and hit a palmyrah tree. Due to the said impact, the deceased M.Prabhakar sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. All other inmates also sustained grievous injuries. While the injured were being shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, the sister of the deceased by name Pushpamma succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. The wife and aunt of the deceased sustained multiple fractures. The Maruthi Car was completely damaged. Police, Narketpally, Nalgonda District registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2006 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC.

3. The petitioners claimed compensation from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP-7-W-2149.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter and called for strict proof of the petition averments. The respondent No.2 contended that the alleged accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased and reserved their right to file an additional counter as and when the petitioners furnished documents in respect of negligent driving, cause of accident and death of M.Prabhakar and on receipt of the policy and driving license status of the lorry driver.

6. The Tribunal framed the issues as follows:

i. Whether the death of M.Prabhakar on 07.05.2006 was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-7-W-2149?

ii. Whether the petitioners were entitled for compensation? If so, against whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. The claimant No.1, the wife of the deceased who also travelled along with the deceased at the time of the accident was examined as PW.1, another eye-witness to the accident was examined as PW.2, the Area Manager of Deccan Grameena Bank was examined as PW.3 to speak about the employment of the deceased and the emoluments drawn by him. Exs.A1 to A16 were marked on behalf of the claimants. The respondent No.2 got exam