JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award of the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, dated 28.5.1992, by which learned Judge has dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. 2. The appeal is opposed on behalf of M/s. Swastik Automobiles, respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 - Surendra Kumar Malhotra, and respondent No. 3 - National Insurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur, have not appeared despite service of notices on them - Hence the appeal has been hard is their absence. 3. Briefly stated, case of the claimant is that he is a trained T.V. Engineer and is employed in the business of report of T.V. sets by going to the residences of the customers. On 7.12.1983, the claimant was going from his house in (sic) Nagar on a motorcycle, RSS.134. This was.at about 2.30 p.m. The claimant reached the road crossing near street No. 2 that respondent - Surendra Kumar Malhotra came from eastern side riding scooter RRM 8163. Surendra Kumar Malhotra was driving the Scooter at an excessive speed. He did not sound any horn and collided with the front wheel of the motor cycle of the claimant and did not stop and went towards Raja Park.i.e. in the western direction. The claimant fell down as a result of this accident, along with his motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries on his left thigh. He also sustained fractures. He had to undergo surgical operation at which a steel plate has to be fixed in his leg. He remained confined to bed for four months. 4. The case of the claimant was that the incident was witnessed-by AW 2, Shashi Kant and Ramesh (AW 3) who had taken him to the hospital soon after wards. He remained under treatment of Dr. Madhava Upadhyaya (AW 4). The claim was resisted before the learned Judge of the Tribunal by the respondent No. 3, National Insurance Co. and by respondent No.1 - Surendra Kumar Malhotra. Respondent No. 1 - Surendra Kumar Malhotra, in his reply, denied the story of accident altogether and pleaded that M/s. Swastik Automobile was owner of the Scooter in question viz. RRM 8163. It appears that the respondent No. 2-M/s. Swastik Automobiles did not filed any reply inspite of service and the learned Judge of the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against M/s. Swastik Automobiles vide order dated 3.9.1987. 5. Learned Judge of the Tribunal framed due issues. RRM 8163. It appears that the respondent No. 2-M/s. Swastik Automobiles did not filed any reply inspite of service and the learned Judge of the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against M/s. Swastik Automobiles vide order dated 3.9.1987. 5. Learned Judge of the Tribunal framed due issues. The claimant examined himself and produced AW 2, AW 3, AW 4 & AW 5 in support of his claim: No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. 6. Learned Judge of the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimant arrived at a finding that the claimant had failed to prove that he met an accident at the hands of Surendra Kumar Malhotra due to rash and negligent driving of the Scooter RRM 8163. He was of the view that the claimant himself must have driven his motor cycle in a negligent manner. Upon such a finding, he dismissed the claim of N.K. Chopra. Aggrieved, N.K. Chopra has filed this appeal. 7. Shri G.K. Bharatia has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2-M/s. Swastik Automobiles, and has opposed this appeal. It is unfortunate that nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - Surendra Kumar Malhotra, and respondent No. 3- National Insurance Co. Ltd., in spite of the service of the notice of this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in this case, learned Judge of the Tribunal has seriously erred in law and facts in discarding evidence of the claimant which had proved in a specific manner that the claimant met an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter, RRM 8163, by Surendra Kumar Malhotra. It is urged that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has given specious reasons for discarding cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the claimant. It is submitted that Surendra Kumar was the best witness to contest the claim of the appellant but Surendra Kumar Malhotra did not choose to appear in the witness box and rebut the evidence led on behalf of the claimant and, therefore, this appeal should be accepted and the claim of the appellant be granted. 9. Mr. G.K. Bharatia on behalf of respondent No. 2 contends that the claimant was required to prove his case on the basis of his evidence and mere non-examination of Surendra Kumar did not entitle the claimant to say that his case has been proved. 9. Mr. G.K. Bharatia on behalf of respondent No. 2 contends that the claimant was required to prove his case on the basis of his evidence and mere non-examination of Surendra Kumar did not entitle the claimant to say that his case has been proved. It is submitted that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has rejected the theory set up by the claimant on correct appreciation of evidence and no interference is called for at the hands of this Court. 10. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the material available on record. 11. It is trite law that that party is required to prove its case which sets up the particular case. The claimant was required of establish that he met an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Scooter driven by Surendra Kumar Malhotra. Once this fact was established, the burden shifted on the respondents to show that the accident did not happen in the way alleged by the claimant. It is to be remain bered that in a criminal case the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. However, in civil cases, claimant can succeed on the basis of preponderance of probabilities only. In a motor accident claim, the claimant is not required to prove his case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. It would suffice if he has proved his case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 12. In the present case, Naveen Kumar Chopra has appeared in the witness box and stated on oath that he was coming on his motor cycle at a slow speed towards Chowraha in question when Surendra Kumar Malhotra all of a sudden entered the Chowraha from eastern side and sped towards western side causing the accident. Scooter of Surendra Kumar collided against front wheel of the claimant with the result that he fell down and sustained serious injuries. Naveen Kumar Chopra has stated that immediately after he was taken away by Shashi Kant to the hospital where he was admitted and had been operated upon. The evidence given by this witness had been corroborated in material Particulars by testimony of AW 2, Shashi Kant, and AW 3, Ramesh, who claim to have seen the occurrence and who claim to have taken the claimant in an injured state to the hospital. 13. The evidence given by this witness had been corroborated in material Particulars by testimony of AW 2, Shashi Kant, and AW 3, Ramesh, who claim to have seen the occurrence and who claim to have taken the claimant in an injured state to the hospital. 13. First ground given by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is that no report of the incident was made in the police either by the claimant or by the witnesses accompanying him or even by the doctor who examined the claimant. In my opinion, this factor was not a good ground to reject the testimony of the claimant and his witnesses which was otherwise unimpeachable. 14. In Brestornm v. Anant Ram, 1990 ACJ 333 , an adverse inference was drawn by the learned Judge of the Tribunal against the claimant on the ground that the accident had not been reported to the police. It was in evidence of the claimant that he had become unconscious and had been taken to the hospital immediately. lie does state that a report was made and the statements of certain witnesses were recorded. However, this fact has not been established satisfactorily. In my opinion, merely because, the claimant has failed to prove that a report of the incident had been lodged, no adverse inference could be drawn against the claimant on this count. In the aforesaid case of Brestornm (supra) following observations were made with regard to the similar aspect of the case:- "Therefore, even if no report wits made to the police, no adverse inference can be drawn out of this failure. The Tribunal has drawn certain inferences as if it was trying a criminal case. Such a course is not available to the Tribunal." 15. The learned Judge of the Tribunal then took into consideration that the claimant had filed petition on the last day of the expiry of the limitation for filing of claim. In my opinion,no adverse inference could have been drawn on that basis. In this case, it is well established that the injured had been grievously injured and had become unconscious. The learned Judge of the Tribunal then took into consideration that the claimant had filed petition on the last day of the expiry of the limitation for filing of claim. In my opinion,no adverse inference could have been drawn on that basis. In this case, it is well established that the injured had been grievously injured and had become unconscious. Merely because, the claimant waited till last date of the expiry of the limitation, it cannot be said that his claim was false: The learned Judge of the Tribunal adversely commented upon the fact that the claimant did not at all prove as to who were the police officers who had examined him or the witnesses and in which police station, report had been lodged. To my mind, this was nut a good ground to reject the testimony of the claimant particularly when it was supported by evidence of the independent witnesses Shashi Kant (A\W 2) and Ramesh (AW 3). 16. Learned Judge of the Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons for discarding testimony of Shashi Kant and Ramesh. Shashi Kant who is Gupta by caste does not belong to the community of the claimant. Likewise, Ramesh is Sind h i by caste and is again not related to the claimant in any manner. They were independent witnesses of the accident and, therefore, their testimony could have been discarded only on cogent grounds. In my opinion, the learned Judge of the Tribunal was not right in discarding the evidence of these witnesses which corroborates the evidence of the claimant. It is to be remembered that the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus does not apply in India. Merely because the testimony of the claimant is not reliable in respect of lodging of a report, his evidence on other material particulars could not have been discarded on that count. 17. In the present case, S.K. Malhotra was the best witness to say that the was not Driving scooter in question and had not collided with motor-bike of N.K. Chopra. He was not examined by the respondents for the reasons host known to them. Adverse inference could legitimately be drawn for non-examination of S.K. Malhotra. 18. No other point was urged before me. 19. In view of what I have said above, I find that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. He was not examined by the respondents for the reasons host known to them. Adverse inference could legitimately be drawn for non-examination of S.K. Malhotra. 18. No other point was urged before me. 19. In view of what I have said above, I find that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 28.5.1992 is set aside. Since the learned Judge of the Tribunal did not decide the question of quantum of compensation, he shall now decide the same after hearing both the sides within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record. 21. In the facts and circumstances of the case, costs are made easy. The record be sent back.Appeal allowed. *******