In a claim for compensation under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the burden of proving rashness and negligence on the part of the driver lies on the claimants.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim of the appellants preferred under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 2 ) ONE Bachan Ram, husband of appellant No. 1 son of appellant No. 2 and father of appellants 3 and 4 was stated to have died as a result of truck bearing registration No. DLG 3367 belonging to respondent No. l, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3 having struck down the said Bachan Ram on September 30, 1963, on the Grand Trunk Road (Delhi-Karnal Road) at about 5. 00 P. M. near about Azadpur Village. The deceased was stated to be 35 years old. He was a grass cutter who is stated to have had an income of Rs. 120. 00per month. The insurance company had denied the factum of insurance. Respondent No. 1 had admitted to be the owner of the said truck but had denied the accident. Respondent No. 2 had admitted that he was a driver employed by respondent No. 1 but had denied the accident. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident, if any resulting into death of Bachan Ram, was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 ? 2. Whether the respondent No. 1 got the truck in question insured with respondent No. 3 and a policy of insurance subsisted at the time of accident ? 3. To what amount, if any, as damages are the petitioners entitled ? 4. Relief.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal came to the conclusion that the truck was insured with respondent No. 3 and a valid policy of insurance subsisted at the time of the accident. It also held the damages proved came to Rs. 11,700. 00 as against claim of Rs. 30,000. 00 On issue No. 1 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not proved that the accident was caused by the aforesaid truck but even if it be assumed that the said truck was involved in the accident it was not proved that the death of Bachan Ram was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. It was further observed that the deceased was partly responsible for the accident.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the decision, both on merits and as to the quantum of the compensation fixed, the appellants have come up to this Court.

( 5 ) ASSUMING that the vehicle involved in the accident was truck No. DLG-3367, before the appellants can succeed in getting a claim it has to be proved that the said truck was driven rashly and negligently by its driver resulting in the accident and ultimate death of Bachan Ram. Out of the witnesses produced the only possible eye-witnesses to the accident could be Om Parkash, Public witness 5, Ram pat, Public witness 6 and Hoshiar Singh the driver who appeared as R. W. 2. Hoshiar Singh has denied the accident and stated he knew nothing about it. He may or may not be telling the truth. The fact, however, that in his examination-in-chief he denied that he knew how to drive a truck but in cross-examination admitted that he had a licence for driving a heavy truck throws doubt on his testimony. All the same his testimony does not throw light on how the accident took place. Om Parkash said to be a disinterested person whose testimony has been discarded by the Tribunal on the ground that he is a chance witness stated that he was going on a cycle and had seen the deceased loading his Rera with grass. The truck overtook him and after it had passed the Rera he saw that the deceased had been struck down by it. Ram Pat, Public witness 6 who was travelling in the truck states that he had also seen the deceased loading his Rera with grass but as the truck passed by the Rera the deceased suddenly came on the road and was struck by the rear portion of the truck and fell down. He did not raise a hue and cry just then but a little later got out of the truck, came back to the site of the accident and there saw the deceased lying dead. It is an admitted case that the truck was on a highway and was on the correct si