In a motor accident claim, the burden of proof rests on the claimants to establish negligence. A significant, unexplained delay in reporting the incident and the failure to examine primary eyewitnesses are valid grounds for a tribunal to dismiss a compensation claim for lack of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Taneja, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment dated 07.04.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan No.1, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.902/2014, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, as alleged in the claim petition, are that on 16.04.2015, at around 9:00 PM, Jaikumar Daga (since deceased) was travelling as a pillion rider on an Activa Scooter bearing registration No.RJ-14-ES-1612, which was being driven by respondent No.1. When they reached near old JDA Office, Vidhyadhar Nagar, an unknown motorcycle, being driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit the said scooter. As a result of which, the scooter got disbalanced and both riders on the scooter fell on the road. Consequently, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and later on died on 08.05.2015.

2.1 In the claim petition, respondent No.1, who is the nephew of the deceased was impleaded as non-claimant No.1 in the capacity of the driver of the scooter. Claimant No.2, being the owner of the scooter, was impleaded as non-claimant No.2, and the respondent-Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’), being insurer of the scooter, was impleaded as non-claimant No.3.

2.2 It was averred in the claim petition that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of respondent No.1 and the driver of the unknown motorcycle. On the said basis, the claimants claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,08,80,000/- under various heads.

3. The respondent No.1 filed reply to the claim petition and denied any negligence on his part in the occurrence of the accident. It was specifically pleaded that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of unknown motorcycle. It was, however, further stated that even if any negligence was attributed to respondent No.1 in the occurrence of the accident, the liability to pay compensation would still be that of the Insurance Company.

3.1 The Insurance Company also filed its reply stating therein that the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 09.05.2015 i.e., after a delay of around 23 days from the date of accident i.e., 16.04.2015. It was pleaded that the claim petition was not maintainable, as the claimant No.2 had filed the claim petition against herself. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of unknown motorcycle, therefore, no liability could be fastened upon it to pay compensation. It was also pleaded that the claimants and respondent No.1 were acting in collusion with each other with an intention to obtain compensation on the basis of false and fabricated facts. Accordingly, the Insurance Company denied its liability to indemnify or pay compensation to the claimants.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed seven issues. In support of their case, the claimants examined one witness, namely Sunita Daga (AW-1), and produced documentary evidence marked as Ex-1 to Ex-21. The Insurance Company produced the final report submitted by the investigating agency as documentary evidence which was marked as Ex-NA-1.

5. The learned Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record, vide impugned judgment dated 07.04.2021, dismissed the claim petition by holding that it