The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the cause of death in a motor vehicular accident and the reliance on evidence to establish the circumstances of the accident and the cause of death.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. The appellants had filed a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 20.03.2013 which was registered as MAC petition No.31/2014(2013). The said claim petition, inter alia, alleged that Satyendra Mandal (the husband of the first appellant, son of the second appellant and father of the other appellants) was driver of the truck bearing No.UP 13Q 9364 (hereinafter referred to as “the truck”) which was involved in a motor vehicular accident that had occurred on 06.01.2013 near Bharat Gas Plant, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP with the other vehicle described as Tata 407 bearing registration No.UP 17T 4443 (hereinafter referred to as “Tata 407”) driven by Laxman (the first respondent before the Tribunal), it being owned by Raj Kumar (the second respondent before the tribunal) and insured with Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. (third respondent before the tribunal). The Tribunal issued notices to the said respondents who appeared and contested the case.

2. The driver and owner of Tata 407 filed a joint written statement, inter alia, denying negligence on the part of the former (the driver) and stating that the accident had occurred due to rash/negligent driving of the truck by Satyendra Mandal, the driver of the truck, adding that one Harinder who was travelling in Tata 407 which had been hit, had expired while Satyendra had fled from the spot immediately after the collision and further that this was the subject matter of investigation by the local police which had registered a first information report (FIR) No.16/2013 on 06.01.2013 in police station Loni District Ghaziabad, UP for offences under Sections 279, 388 and 304A of Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC). The insurer of Tata 407, in its written statement, admitted insurance cover but denied liability to pay compensation or indemnify.

3. The Tribunal held inquiry in the course of which the appellants (the claimants) led evidence by examining Ranjeet Tiwari (PW1), Vinita Devi (PW2), Vinod Mandal (PW3) and Ram Kumar Mandal (PW4). It may be mentioned here itself that the evidence of the witnesses other than PW4 relates to the status, employment and earnings of Satyendra Mandal which have a bearing on the calculation of compensation, if found awardable in the matter. PW4, on the other hand, was presented as an eye-witness to the occurrence of the accident wherein the two said vehicles had collided against each other and which, according to the case set up by the claimants, had occurred due to rash/negligent driving on the part of the driver of Tata 407 (the first respondent in the appeal) and had resulted in death of Satyendra Mandal. No evidence was led by the respondents.

4. The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced, which included the copy of the FIR No.17/2013 which had been registered in PS Loni on 07.01.2013 at the instance of Anil Kumar son of Bhagwat, an employee of Triveni Road Career Pvt. Ltd., which owned the truck that was driven by Satyendra Mandal on 06.01.2013 along with a copy of the report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which had been submitted by the police on completion of investigation into the said FIR. It may be added that the copy of FIR No.16/2013 which was referred to by the driver and owner of the Tata 407 had earlier been filed on record by the said parties. The documents submitted would also include copy of the post mortem examination report of Satyendra Mandal, who according to the FIR No.17/2013 (Ex.PW2/A) had been found lying dead near the gate of Bharat Gas plant within the jurisdiction of police station, Loni, Ghaziabad in the morning of 07.01.2013.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by judgment dated 13.10.2014, holding that the appellant had failed to prove that Satyendra Mandal had died as a result of injuries suffered in the motor vehicular accident or that it been caused on acco