Challa Gunaranjan, J.
1. This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the order, dated 09.10.2007, in M.V.O.P. No.266 of 2002, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor (for short, “the Tribunal”), dismissing the claim for compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are set out as under:
(a) The deceased, while proceeding on a motorcycle belonging to 3rd respondent, stated to have been hit by oil tanker bearing registration No.NL 02 D 1447, belonging to 1st respondent, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver, thereby the deceased fell down and succumbed on the spot. The incident stated to have occurred on 22.05.2002 at about 4.45 A.M. while deceased was proceeding from Penumuru to Chittoor, near Puligundu Village. On coming to know about the accident, son of deceased lodged a complaint with Penumuru Police, and the police have registered Crime No. 14 of 2002 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, as a hit-and-run case. Later, police have arrested driver of 1st respondent and laid charge-sheet against him.
(b) The deceased was stated to be aged 42 years and an income-tax assessee, since he was in the business. The deceased was survived by wife, two minor children, and father, thus, claim came to be preferred by them seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-under various heads.
4. The 1st respondent, owner of the oil tanker, remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending oil tanker, filed written statement denying that the vehicle was involved in the accident and further denying that the driver of the vehicle was negligent in causing the same. Even as per FIR, case was registered as hit-and-run, and the driver of vehicle had never brought to its notice about the accident, and only after 22 days of occurrence of the accident, the vehicle was shown to be involved in the crime, which obviously was a clear setup. Alternatively, it was also pleaded that the deceased was solely responsible and negligent in causing the accident. The age, avocation, and income of deceased were also disputed.
5. The 3rd respondent, owner of the motorcycle, filed written statement supporting the case of claimants.
6. The 4th respondent, insurer of the motorcycle, also filed written statement denying its liability and disputing the quantum of compensation claimed.
7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
“i) Whether the accident in question is caused by Ashok Leyland Tanker 1993 Model NL 02 D 1447 to motor bike solo LML No.AP 03 G 6516?
ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as claimed in the claim petition?
iii) To what relief?”
8. On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A26. The 2nd respondent examined RW.1, however, no documents were marked on its behalf.
9. The Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, has decided that the claimants failed to prove that the accident had occurred because of involvement of the oil tanker and that the evidence adduced in that regard was insufficient to link the accident with the offending vehicle. In view of aforesaid findings, the Tribunal answered the other issues in the negative and thereby dismissed the claim, by impugned order, dated 09.10.2007. Assailing the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants.
10. Heard Mr.Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, representing Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Ms.A.Anasuya, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Insurer.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants contended that the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 and as well as Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A3 charge-sheet, which would sufficiently prove that the accident had occurred because of the offending oil tanker hitting the motorcycle, on touchstone of preponderance of probability and whereas the Tribunal disbelieving such evidence in a way cast a higher degree of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is impermissible. In further elaboration, it is contended that the claimants were merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering determination of compensation, in that regard, the FIR and the charge-sheet collectively were sufficient to prove the occurrence of accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of PW.3, eyewitness, who categorically stated that he had seen the offending oil tanker proceeding in high speed towards Penumuru village, at a distance of about 4 K.Ms. from the scene of accident, he being an unrelated witness, his evidence could not have been discarded. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajani Sahoo (Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.—of 2025 @ SLP(c) No.29302 of 2019, dated 02.01.2025.); and (2) Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand ((2011) 11 SCC 635).
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, while supporting the impugned order, contended that the evidence of claimants does not establish the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident, and that PW.3 definitely was not an eyewitness who witnessed the accident, furthermore, Ex.A1 FIR was registered at the instance of son of the deceased as a hit-and-run case and only after about 22 days the police have implicated the oil tanker in the crime, therefore, the Tribunal rightly has come to conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to connect the oil tanker as the offending vehicle to the crime. The finding of facts on appreciation of evidence, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse calling for interference of this Court.
(b) She further contended that the Tribunal has not applied higher degree of proof or standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt as pleaded by the appellants, but merely tested the case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, which even could not be demonstrated. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity, and thus, pleaded for dismissal of appeal.
13. We have considered the submissions of both learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the record.
14. The deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 03 G 6516, from Penumuru to Chittoor. It is claimed that when he reached Puligundu at about 4.40 A.M., oil tanker bearing registration No.NL 02 D 1447 had hit the motorcycle, as a result, deceased fell down and succumbed on spot. The incident stated to have been first noticed by PW.3. In his evidence, it is stated that he was proceeding on motorcycle from Penumuru to Chittoor and that at about 4.55 A.M., at a distance of about 4 K.Ms. before the scene of accident, he had seen oil tanker coming in opposite direction at high speed. Thereafter, when he reached Puligundu Village, he noticed the deceased and motorcycle on the road. In cross-examination, PW.3 stated that though body of deceased was noticed on the road, due to fear and scare, he had not taken deceased to the hospital, but intimation was given to the villagers about the occurrence of the accident. In the evidence of PW.1, son of deceased, who lodged the complaint, there is no reference as to the source of information regarding occurrence of accident. Even the FIR, which was registered based on the report given by PW.1, merely refers to the case of hit and run. Subsequently, after about 22 days, the oil tanker has been identified to be offending vehicle and its driver came to be implicated in the crime, and eventually charge-sheet was accordingly filed. As per the charge-sheet, PW.3 was not even shown as one of the listed witnesses, and even PW.3 in his cross- examination, admitted that he did not give any evidence in the criminal case.
15. In order to connect the offending vehicle to the accident, the claimants have solely relied on the evidence of PW.3. The evidence of PW.3 came to be disbelieved by the Tribunal. We are also of the opinion that the evidence of PW.3 would really in no way help the case of claimants. PW.3 stated that he was the first person, who witnessed the accident, but he neither reported the same to the police nor tried to take the deceased to the hospital. In his evidence, it is stated that his residence is about 150 feet from the house of the deceased; yet he did not choose to inform the occurrence of the accident to the family members. Even in the evidence of PW.1, who gave the first report, he also does not say that he got the information through PW.3. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in disbelieving this evidence.
16. To support the creditworthiness of PW.3 and his evidence, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parmeshwari2. In fact, the said case was dealing with testimony of a witness, who had tried to help the victim immediately after occurrence of accident, by taking the injured to the hospital for treatment, and in that context, it has been said that the evidence of such witness cannot be brushed aside and due credence be given. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, admittedly, PW.3, though stated that he passed by the scene of accident, has neither taken the injured to the hospital nor reported the same to the police or to the family members of the deceased. Therefore, the said judgment will have no application to the facts of the present case.
17. Further, the Tribunal also recorded that since the offending vehicle was traced and later connected with the crime after 22 days during the course of investigation, the Investigation Officer, who played a major role in the identification of the oil tanker, was not examined. Hence, in no way, the claimants could establish the link between the accident and the offending oil tanker, and who exactly had identified the oil tanker to be the one which caused the accident. The conclusion so arrived at by the Tribunal, in our view, is justified.
18. Learned counsel for the claimants heavily relied on Ex. A1 FIR and Ex. A3 charge sheet, which point out the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, to be sufficient proof to support the occurrence of the accident and also the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. He laid much emphasis on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ICICI Lombard case1. There is no quarrel with regard to the exposition in the said case.
19. We are not convinced with the said submissions, inasmuch as Ex. A1 FIR registered at the first instance merely referred as a case of hit and run. Only after concluding the investigation, police have laid charge-sheet against the driver of the oil tanker. Except this piece of evidence, there is no other connecting material or evidence as to how and who identified the oil tanker to have involved in the accident. Charge sheet cannot be conclusive proof to establish either the occurrence of the accident or proof of negligence, but it would merely be one such piece of evidence. In fact, a holistic view of evidence has to be taken in to consideration, even if it is to be on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal indeed has examined the evidence on record in a holistic view and ultimately has come to conclusion that there is no evidence to identify and link the oil tanker with the accident, which is sine qua non for deciding the liability or entitlement for compensation. The findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on appreciation of overall evidence, in our considered opinion, are neither perverse nor suffer from any infirmity calling for interference of this Court.
20. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any in this case, shall stand closed.
