1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJ. AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.1287/99 SMT. SHARDA AND OTHERS VS BADRI SHANKER PANDEY AND OTHERS & S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 1265/99 CHIRANJI LAL VS BADRI SHANKER PANDEY AND OTHERS DATE OF ORDER :- FEBRUARY 5,2009, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr. Sandeep Mathur, for the appellants, Mr. K.N.Tiwari, Mr. G.S.Rathore , for the respondents, BY THE COURT (ORAL) Heard. Both these appeals have been preferred on behalf of claimants against the Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and Rajasthan State Co operative Tribunal, Jaipur, vide order dated 1.6.1999, whereby the claim of the appellants claimants was dismissed on the ground that the 2 appellants failed to prove negligence on the part of respondent no. 1 driver of the offending vehicle No. HYW 3132. Brief facts as mentioned in the claim petitions are that on 30.10.1991 at about 2 p.m. , deceased Kailash was going on his cycle along with Hameed , who was sitting at his back . When the deceased reached near Octroi Out-Post, the offending vehicle No. HYW 3132 coming from behind in high speed , dashed him . This caused Hameed to fall down while Kailash along with cycle came under the offending tanker and was even dragged to some distance. Kailash died at the spot. The tanker was stopped by the people on the spot. The matter was lodged in the police and necessary investigation was conducted and after collecting evidence charge sheet was filed against the respondent no. 1 for causing accident due to rash and negligent driving. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to 3 appreciate the claim in right perspective as the claim petitions were dismissed only on the ground that the negligence could not be proved for want of eye witness to the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the standard of proof in the motor accident claims is different than the standard of proof required in civil cases as well as criminal prosecutions . The enquiry is to be conducted in motor accident claims in pursuance to the provisions of Section 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others etc. , AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 1354, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be 4 inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable . The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. The learned counsel submitted that the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal to view the evidence in right perspective and to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity to lead evidence . Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal. In view of the submissions advanced and on perusal of the Award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that the accident took place on 7.10.1991 wherein deceased Kailash died due to injuries caused in the accident . The only eye witness Hameed was not examined and the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that evidence of eye witness was not available on record. In view of the nature of inquiry to be conducted in motor accident claims under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles 5 Act, the evidence adduced on record, ocular or documentary, is to be taken into consideration as the standard of proof is not required to be that of a criminal case or that of civil cases as the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked in appropriate cases . Thus the matter deserves to be viewed in right perspective and remanded for fresh decision on all the issues. Accordingly, the impugned Award and judgment passed by learned Tribunal is set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing and leading evidence if any, to both the parties . The record of the case be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 4th of March, 2009. The appeal stands disposed of. (Guman Singh)J.