JUDGMENT :

Gautam Chourdiya, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the dismissal of the Appellant's claim petition vide award dated 03.10.2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Place Baster at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 54 of 2012.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that as per claimant, on 24.12.2011, deceased-Fulldhar was going with his friends to take manure by Tractor bearing registration No. CG-17/G/2413, when they reached at Dharampura road, Respondent No. 1, driver of the offending Tractor, driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, turned turtle the said Tractor and as a result thereof, Fulldhar sustained grievous injuries on his head, face and hands. Later on Fulldhar died.

3. Learned counsel for the Claimant submits that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and not allowing any amount for loss of Claimant's son. He further submits that the Claimant has proved Ex.-A/8-charge-sheet under Section 304A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and other documents i.e. Ex.-A/1 dehati-nalish, Ex.-A/2 FIR, Ex.-A/3 seizure memo & Ex.-A/4 spot map which show that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver. But the Tribunal only on the ground that trial against the driver is yet to be concluded and that no any witness of the accident has been examined by the Claimant, did not consider the aforesaid documents and dismissed the claim petition of the Claimant. Therefore, it is prayed that the award impugned may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for decision afresh.

4. In the instant appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking additional document i.e. insurance policy as evidence on record has been filed by the Insurance Company/Respondent No. 3.

5. The driver and owner of the Tractor, by filing written statement, have not denied the involvement of the Tractor in the accident but has denied the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver.

6. The Tribunal, holding the Claimant failed to prove involvement of the Tractor in the said accident, the Claimant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver and also her relation with the deceased, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal.

8. On the face of the record, it is seen that the Claimant/Appellant has not examined any eye witness who saw the accident and the investigating officer (I.O.).

9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpa Rana and Others 2009 ACJ 287, the Delhi High Court observed in para-13 as under:

"13. The last contention of the appellant insurance company is that the respondents-Claimants should have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal, 2007 ACJ 1284 (SC). On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified copy of the criminal records of criminal case in F.I.R. No. 955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of the offending vehicle; (ii) criminal record showing completion of investigation of police and issue of charge-sheet under sections 279/304-A, Indian Penal Code against the driver; (iii) certified copy of F.I.R., wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These document are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this content