The court affirmed that eyewitness testimony suffices to establish vehicle involvement in accident claims, upholding the MACT's award despite insurers' challenges.

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 22.03.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No. 18-MAC/2 of 2009, titled as “Rekha Devi and others Vs Manoj (deceased) through his LRs and others”.

2. By way of award dated 22.03.2013, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, by awarding a sum of Rs. 5,54,160/-, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till payment. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal.

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-

4.1. Petitioners, being widow and sons of deceased Baldev Singh, had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, seeking the compensation, on account of death of Sh. Baldev Singh, in a road side accident, involving vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. HP17A-6406, driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner.

4.2 Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded that Sh. Baldev Singh, who was aged about 44 years, at the time of his death, was a tailor by profession and was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month.

4.3 According to them, on 21.12.2008, deceased Baldev Singh was crossing Bata Pul and meanwhile, vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. HP17A-6406, being driven by respondent No. 1, in rash and negligent manner, hit Baldev Singh and he sustained injuries. He was taken to Paonta hospital, from where, he was referred to Dehradoon, and from where, he was further referred to Chandigarh, but he expired due to head injuries.

4.4 In the investigation, the police has impounded vehicle No. UA07B-7120 and as such, owner of the said vehicle was also made party. Information regarding the accident was given to the police.

4.5 On the basis of above facts, the petitioners have sought the compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- along with interest, from the date of accident till realization.

5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d), who are the LRs of respondent No. 1 Manoj Kumar, registered owner and driver of vehicle No. HP17A-6406. They have taken the preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable, the petitioners are concealing the material facts and vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not involved in the accident in question.

5.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied by taking the stand that vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not involved in the accident in question. According to them, as per the investigation conducted by police, vehicle No. UA07B-7120 was found involved in the accident.

6. Respondent No. 2, who has been impleaded as owner-cum-driver of vehicle No. UA07B-7120, has filed separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections, that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioners have concealed the material facts and have not come to the Court with clean hands.

6.1 According to him, he had sold Tata Sumo bearing registration No. UA07B-7120 to Sh. Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Jaiyanti Parsad, resident of Village Tokion, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. In order to substantiate the said fact, the agreement/affidavit