The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving rash and negligent driving for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, and the standard of proof in claim petitions.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —The appellant is the claimant whose claim petition has been dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (for short ''Tribunal'') and aggrieved thereby has filed the instant appeal.

2. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short ''Act'') on account of multiple grievous injuries sustained by him due to accident and collision between vehicle No. HP32-1629 (Jeep) being driven by respondent No. 2 and vehicle No. HP-30- 0128 (Scooter) being driven by respondent No. 5 at Jarod, Tatapani-Karsog road, on 14.01.2002, at about 10:30 a.m. The appellant was pillion rider on the scooter and on account of having sustained grievous injuries in the accident, he was initially taken to Sunni hospital from where he was referred to Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla (for short ''IGMC'') , where he remained admitted from 14.01.2002 to 17.01.2002.

According to him, he could not fully recover from the injuries as is evident from the disability certificate issued by a duly constituted Medical Board certifying 15% permanent disability. It was alleged that the accident in question was a direct result of the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep which hit the scooter being driven by respondent No. 5 and on such basis, the appellant claimed a compensation of Rs.7, 00, 000/- (Rupees seven lacs) from the respondents jointly and severally.

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the petition by filing a joint reply wherein it has been submitted that no accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 and they had been falsely implicated in this case. It was denied that the scooter was struck by the Jeep. As a matter of fact, respondent No. 2 was driving his Jeep at a very slow speed on his own side while respondent No. 5 was driving the scooter at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side and struck against the Jeep as he could not control the scooter. The appellant had sustained the minor injuries. After the accident, respondent No. 2 had taken the appellant to Sunni hospital for first-aid and thereafter informed the police. It was solely on account of the respondent No. 5 that accident in question had taken place.

4. Respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the Jeep, who contested the petition by filing reply wherein preliminary objection regarding maintainability was raised on the ground that respondent No. 2 (driver of the Jeep) was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Moreover, the particulars of insurance policy had not been produced nor disclosed. So, in absence thereof, there was no contract of insurance of replying respondent with respondent No. 1 (owner of Jeep) . It was lastly averred that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5 and not on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2.

5. Respondent No. 4, the owner of the Scooter in his reply admitted that on 14.01.2002, the appellant was coming from Tatapani to Karsog on Scooter of replying respondent, which was being driven by respondent No. 5 and the same was hit by Jeep being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the appellant and respondent No. 5 had fallen down and sustained injuries.

6. Respondent No. 5 did not contest the petition and was proceeded ex parte.

7. Respondent No. 6 is the insurer of the Scooter, contested the petition by filing reply, wherein preliminary objection was raised to the effect that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the accident had taken place due to negligence on the part of respondent No. 2. On merit, the averments made in the claim petition were denied for want of knowledge.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal on 23.08.2007, framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries due to