Claimants must lead evidence in support of their claims; failure to do so, especially after multiple opportunities, can result in dismissal of the petition.

ORDER

1. Instant miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act of 1988') has been preferred on behalf of the appellants/claimants praying therein that the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (DistrictJudge, Dausa) (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal'), in Motor Accident Claims Case No.195/2013, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants had been rejected, be quashed and set aside. It is also prayed that the matter be remanded back for granting an opportunity for leading evidence to the claimants-appellants and a direction may also be given to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh.

2. Facts of the present case, in brief, are that the appellants, who were the claimants in the aforementioned claim case, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming compensation on account of death of Jeetu @ Ajeet Singh, husband of appellant No.1, son of appellant Nos.2 & 3 and brother of appellant No.4, in a motor accident, which took place on 25.12.2012, while he was to go to School besides a kachha road on his side at Kailai Bus Stand and was waiting for his friend. Suddenly, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-01-U-0003 being driven rashly and negligently came and hit him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and later-on died. Alleging that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, a claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming therein a total compensation of Rs.37,15,000/- under the various heads.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.I/driver and respondent No.2/owner did not appear despite service, as such the matter proceeded ex-parte against them. Respondent No.3/insurance company filed a written-statement and denied most of the averments of the claim petition and contended that the F.I.R. has been lodged with a delay of fifteen-days and driver was not having a valid license. The claim petition had been filed under a conspiracy with owner & driver of the vehicle and the Police proceeded just to extort money. There is a breach of policy condition and, therefore, the insurance-company is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No.3/Insurance company, thus, prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. On completion of pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the appellants/claimants on account of leading no evidence.

5. Being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellants/claimants have preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts. The learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on the ground that no evidence was lead. The appellants/claimants are innocent and rustic villagers and were not aware with the legal procedure properly. Counsel has further submitted that the Counsel before the Tribunal had assured that he would take care of the matter but he did not inform anything to them, thus, the claim petition was dismissed on account of leading no evidence. The claimants have a case on merits. Lastly, Counsel for the appellants has prayed that the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back for granting an opportunity to lead evidence and a direction may also be given to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Insurance-company, has strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal requires no interference by this C