“The petitioner in this petition has filed Ex.P1 – FIR in Cr.No.240/2012 on register at Magendhiramangalam Police Station u/s 279, 337 IPC on the driver of Hyundai Verna Car, to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the 1st respondent's driver. R1 examined as RW1 who deposed that he was not rash and negligent, it is the petitioner who was rash and negligent. To prove this version RW2 Sub Inspector of police, Mahendramangalam Police Station filed the rough sketch and charge sheet. The rough sketch shows that the petitioner was in the way of R1 and so is he accident. Further the FIR was closed as “Further action dropped” as the Investigating Officer found the fault on the petitioner. The R2 was examined as RW3 had filed the MV report of the petitioner's TVS to show that the petitioner never possessed valid license to drive. There was no eyewitness to depose that R1 was not rash and negligent. The legislation provides the victim to claim his compensation on the vehicle at his choice. So the petitioner who never possessed license is not a hurdle to this petition. The same doesn't prove that the petitioner was rash and negligent. Thus the claimant established his case case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability through the filing of FIR. Thus the above FIR proved that the R1's rash and negligent caused accident and so FIR as the proof of the accident and both these vehicles are involved, therefore, after perusing the oral and documentary evidence, this Tribunal finds that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the R1. Thus Point No.1 is answered accordingly”.
