The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act to assess the credibility of witnesses, determine the standard of proof required, and establish the facts based on judicial belief and the degree of certainty.

1. The appellants have challenged the award of the Claims Tribunal whereby the Claims Tribunal dismissed their claim petition.

2. On 24th October, 2014 at about 07:30 P.M., Varsha Rani and Neha Batra were travelling in a car bearing No. DL-1CN-7636 driven by Vinav Arora. The driver lost control over the car near Siwah, G. T. Road, Panipat, Haryana and the car hit against an electric pole which resulted in the death of the driver, Vinav Arora and injuries to Neha Batra and Varsha Rani. An electric wire from the electric pole fell on Varsha Rani when she got out of the car immediately after the accident, due to which she died on her way to the hospital due to electrocution.

3. Varsha Rani was aged 25 years at the time of the accident and was survived by her parents who filed an application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal.

4. The offending car was driven and owned by Vinav Arora and was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Limited at the time of accident. It was claimed that the deceased was employed with Scalene works, Bangalore and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of the accident.

5. The appellants examined three witnesses. PW1 produced the salary record (Ex.PW1/1) of the deceased. PW2 is the eye witness who deposed that he was cleaning his pickle shop at Punjabi Rasoi, Village Shiva, near Rohtak Bypass and he saw the car No. DL-1CN-7636 coming from Chandigarh side and going towards Delhi driven by its driver at a very high speed, rashly and negligently and the car suddenly hit an electric pole and overturned. PW2 deposed that the driver of the car died at the spot and an electric wire from the said pole fell on one of the girls who came out of the car. PW2 deposed that many people gathered there and moved the girls to the hospital. PW2 deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the car. The mother of the deceased appeared in the witness box as PW3.

6. Respondent No. 1 examined Neha Batra as R1W1. R1W1 deposed that she was travelling in the car which was driven at a normal speed. R1W1 deposed that the car suddenly got dis-balanced and crashed into an electric pole and thereafter, overturned and fell into a ditch by the roadside. R1W1 deposed that the driver died on the spot whereas Varsha Rani while trying to climb out of the ditch, came in contact with an electric wire and got electrocuted. R1W1 deposed that there was no negligence on the part of the driver.

7. The Claims Tribunal believed the statement of R1W1 that the car was being driven by driver of the car at a normal speed. The Claims Tribunal rejected the testimony of PW2 as not trustworthy on the ground that there was contradiction in his statement in cross-examination. The Claims Tribunal held that the car in question struck against an electric pole and thereafter, overturned but it was not being driven at a high speed or in a rash or negligent manner.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that at the time of hearing that driver of the car was rash and negligent and the contrary finding of the Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants relies on the statement of PW2.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 2 urged at the time of hearing that the driver of the car was not rash and negligent and he was driving the car at a normal speed. Learned counsel for the respondents rely on the statement of R1W1.

10. In Ved Prakash Kharbanda v. Vimal Bindal, 198 (2013) DLT 555, this Court has discussed the meaning of truth and how to discover the truth. A fact is said to be proved when the Court, on considering the matters before it, either believes it to exist or considers its existence probable. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

“13. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

13.1 Proof : A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either b