2025:UHC:9790 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.442 of 2024 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Neeraj Uprety, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. Naresh Pant and Mr. Raunak Pant, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed, are that on 17.08.2023, one Mahindra KUV Car bearing Registration No. UK05-TA-2961 was hired by the deceased Naveen Kumar to travel to Jakhpant for an urgent work. While returning to Vada at about 3: 00 p.m. near Rikhtal, the vehicle being driven by Deepak Kumar met with an accident and fell into a deep gorge. As a result, Naveen Kumar died on the spot, and the driver was thrown out of the vehicle. Claimants alleged that the accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The deceased, aged 35 years, was a healthy young man engaged in agriculture, horticulture, and transport activities, earning around ₹30,000 per month and his mother and two minor children were wholly dependent on him. The claimants sought compensation of ₹72,70,000/- along with interest from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till payment. The learned Tribunal, after considering the Detailed Accident Report submitted by the Police, dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that no eyewitness was produced to establish rash and negligent driving. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the finding returned by learned Tribunal is contrary to law and facts on record. It was pointed out that P.W.2 Kamlesh Giri had clearly deposed as an 2025:UHC:9790 eyewitness that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Deepak Kumar and his testimony was not challenged by the Insurance Company in cross-examination, therefore, his statement remained uncontroverted. It is further argued that in the Detailed Accident Report, the Investigating Officer recorded the confession of the driver that he lost control of the vehicle as a wild animal suddenly crossed the road. This, according to learned counsel, itself proves negligence. It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to properly evaluate this evidence while deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 3. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that negligence was not satisfactorily proved. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of P.W.2, which clearly supported the claimants’ version. The driver’s own admission that he lost control of the vehicle while trying to avoid a wild animal further demonstrates lack of reasonable care and caution. The law is well settled that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is one of preponderance of probabilities and the claim cannot fail merely because there is no independent eyewitness, if the surrounding circumstances establish negligence. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi & others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530, has held that even in the absence of an eyewitness, negligence can be inferred from the nature of the accident and attending facts. 7. Similarly, in the case of Minu B. Mehta 2025:UHC:9790 and another Vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and another, reported in (1977) 2 SCC 441, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the burden of proof may shift once negligence is prima facie shown, and the driver or owner must then rebut the same with cogent evidence. 8. In the present case, learned Tribunal failed to weigh the unchallenged testimony of P.W.2 along with the driver’s admission and the factual matrix properly. The finding on Issue Nos. 1 & 3 with respect to rash and negligent driving, therefore, cannot be sustained. The impugned judgment suffers from material irregularity and non- consideration of relevant evidence. 9. In view of the above discussion, this Appeal from Order is allowed. The judgment & order dated 02.08.2024 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Pithoragarh in M.A.C.P. No. 26 of 2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision on merits, after affording opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence, if required. Learned Tribunal shall decide the claim as expeditiously as possible. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 06.11.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c04853654 45e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C 5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.11.06 16:53:31 +05'30'