The primary burden in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is on the claimant to prove the alleged accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle involved. The court emphasized the importance of proving the involvement of the vehicle and the need for trustworthy evidence in establishing such involvement.

1. Present appeal is filed against the Judgment and Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dhule in M.A.C.P. No.1176/2005, decided on 2nd of December, 2011.

2. The Claim Petitions wherein the involvement of the vehicle concerned is seriously disputed, what should be the approach of the Tribunal while appreciating the evidence in such matters is the issue for consideration in the present appeal.

3. The present respondent nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'claimants') had filed the aforesaid petition claiming compensation on account of death of one Prakash @ Pralhad Dhumal, alleging that he died in a vehicular accident happened on 1st of April, 2005, having involvement of a truck bearing registration No. MTS 7030. It was the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on the date of accident, deceased was proceeding towards village Avdhan, on his Scooter bearing registration MH-18-A-1528 and while he was so proceeding, he was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. MTS 7030, coming from the opposite direction in a high speed. It was the further contention of the claimants that the alleged accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said truck. The claimants had, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the aforesaid truck. Respondent no.3 herein is the owner of the said truck and it was insured with the appellant insurance Company.

4. The owner did not appear before the Tribunal, and the claim petition was proceeded ex-parte against him. The Insurance Company, however, resisted the petition by filing its written statement raising several grounds. The specific defense was raised by the Insurance Company that the vehicle insured with it was not involved in the alleged accident. In order to substantiate the claim so raised, one of the claimants deposed before the Court and three more witnesses were examined by the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The claimants had also placed reliance on the police papers pertaining to the accident in question.

5. The learned Tribunal, after having assessed the oral as well as the documentary evidence brought before it, partly allowed the claim petition and held the claimants entitled for the total compensation of Rs.3,98,500/- inclusive of No Fault Liability amount. The Tribunal held the owner and insurer of the offending truck liable for payment of compensation with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent from the date order till realization. Aggrieved thereby, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

6. Heard Shri Bora, learned Counsel holding for Shri Bafna, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company. Learned Counsel submitted that without there being any evidence the Tribunal has held the insured vehicle to have been involved in the said accident and has consequently held the owner and insurer of the said truck liable for payment of compensation to the claimants.

7. Learned Counsel read out the evidence of two witnesses, namely, Bhanudas Marathe and Deepak Sharma, more particularly highlighting vital admissions given by these two witnesses in their cross-examination. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has manifestly erred in appreciating the evidence of these witnesses. Learned Counsel submitted that the admissions given by these witnesses in their cross-examination clearly indicate that they have not eye witnessed the alleged accident and were got up witnesses. Learned Counsel further submitted that though alleged accident happened on 1st of April, 2005, the statements of these witnesses were recorded after a period of 40 days i.e. on 10th of May, 2005. Learned Counsel submitted that the entire said evidence was unbelievable but the learned Tribunal, relying upon such evidence, has held the involvement of the vehicle insured with the appellant Insurance Company to have been proved in occurrence of the all