The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the identity of the offending vehicle in motor accident compensation cases.

JUDGMENT

Najmiwaziri, J. (Oral) - This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned MACT in Suit No. 176/15 (new MACT case No. 476236/16), on the ground that the identity of the offending vehicle was never established, therefore, there would be no liability on the appellant-insurer to pay any monies in terms of the Award. This issue has been dealt with in the impugned order inter alia as under:-

"7. Written statement has been filed by the respondent No. 2 stating therein that the present petition has been filed suppressing the material facts. It has been further stated that the FIR was registered after the delay of two months. It has been further stated that the accident did not took place on account of the tempo bearing no. DL1LR7832. It has been further stated that some other vehicle hit the truck driver when he was passing to pass the urine and the helper of the truck called out for help and stopped the vehicle of respondent no. 1. It has been further stated that with the help of the respondent no. 1, the injured was taken to the hospital but later on, the above said tempo has been falsely implicated by the police. It has been prayed that the present DAR and the claim petition be dismissed.

8. Written statement has also been filed on record by the Insurance Company i.e. by the respondent no.3 to the effect that neither of the two vehicles involved in the accident were recovered from the spot of the accident nor the matter was reported to the police. It has been further stated that the petitioner was taken to the hospital by a CAT Ambulance. It has been further stated that the involvement of the vehicle no. DL-01LR-7832 is afterthought. It has been further stated that as per the MLC, the injured was under the influence of liquor and as such, he is not entitled for any compensation. It has been further stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and as such, he has been challaned under Section 3/181 of the M. V. Act. It has been further stated, that the offending vehicle was insured in the name of the respondent no.2 under the policy no. 10003/31/14/290417 for a period from 31.07.2013 to 30.07.2014. It has been further stated that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy have been violated. It has been prayed that the present claim petition be dismissed.

12. In the cross examination, PW1 has stated that he does not know as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle called the ambulance. PW-1 has admitted to be it correct that he was accompanied by the second driver namely Tahir. PW-1 has admitted to be it correct that he does not know the registration number of the offending vehicle. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that no such accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle i.e. with Tempo bearing registration No. DL ILR 7832 make TATA ACE. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that his co-driver namely Tahir stopped the offending vehicle for help. PW-l has further denied the suggestion that some other vehicle had hit him and ran away or that his co-driver could not note down the number of the actual offending vehicle. PW-1 has further denied the suggestion that no accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. PW-1 has further denied the suggestion that he has involved the above said vehicle to obtain the false claim.

PW-1 further states that he cannot tell as to what was his age at the time of the accident. PW-1 has further stated that he was driving heavy commercial vehicle i.e. LPT (12 wheels). PW-1 has further stated that the license was issued to him on 12.01.2009 and renewed on 29.12.2014 and the same is valid upto 11.01.2018. PW-1 has further stated that his license was renewed by Gurgaon Authority without his driving test. PW-1 further states that after the accident, he cannot drive.

13. The petitioner has further examined Dr.