IMPORTANT POINT
In claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish negligence, which must be supported by cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants against the Judgment & Award dated 02.12.2021 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), Aizawl in MACT Case No. 6/2018 dismissing the claim of the appellants filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V Act).

3. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the instant appeal is that the appellant No. 1 is the mother of the deceased and the appellant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 are the children of the deceased person. The deceased person late Lalnunhlima, who was aged about 26 years is said to have died due to a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 17.02.2013. Late Lalnunhlima on 17.02.2013 was heating up bitumen by burning firewood. At that moment, a truck bearing registration number MZ07 - 0349 driven by the respondent No. 2 and owned by the respondent No. 1 in the instant appeal ran over the firewood, which was used to heat up the bitumen. As a result, the bitumen got spilled upon late Lalnunhlima’s body and he was seriously burnt. While he was being taken to Lawngtlai Civil Hospital, he succumbed to his injury. As a result, a claim for compensation was filed before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the MV Act by the appellants.

4. During the claim proceeding, the appellants examined three (3) claimant witnesses, who were the appellant No. 1 and two (2) police personnel/officer. As for the opposite parties/appellants, they examined two (2) witnesses, who are the son of the owner of the truck involved and the driver of the truck respectively. After the rival parties led their respective evidence, the learned Tribunal upon hearing the parties passed the impugned Judgment & Award dismissing the claim of the appellants by holding that the appellants failed to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver who drove the vehicle involved in the accident and the owner of the vehicle as well.

5. Referring to the grounds taken in the Memorandum of Appeal, Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel submits that as per the investigation done by the police and also the cross-examination of the respondent No. 2 (driver), wherein, he admitted that the vehicle/truck ran over the firewood which in turn toppled the boiling bitumen causing serious injury and ultimately leading to the death of the deceased person, the appellants have established the negligence on the part of the respondents and therefore, the learned Tribunal could not have dismissed the claim of the appellants. He submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck concerned and that a complaint was registered by the police vide Lawngtlai P.S Case No. 12/2013 dated 18.02.2013 under Section 279/325/427. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle, the appellants produced two (2) police personnel including the Enquiry Officer and that both of them had visited the place of occurrence and there was rash & negligent on the part of the driver in driving the accident vehicle. That not only did the vehicle run over the firewood but also did not stop the vehicle after causing the spilling of the bitumen. Although the case Investigating Officer was not examined before the Tribunal but the Enquiry Officer S.I. Lalkhumsanga appeared before the Tribunal and deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle concerned and under the circumstance, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded appropriate compensation to the appellants and not dismiss the appeal in the manner it did. The learned counsel also submits that the respondents as opposite parties before the Tribunal did not lead or have any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, in absence of any such denial that