The onus of proving negligence in a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act lies with the claimants, and failure to provide sufficient evidence can result in the dismissal of the claim.

R. L. Anand, J.

1. Unfortunately for the appellants, it is an unproved case and, therefore, I have no hesitation in dismissing this appeal.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. The claim petition was moved under sec. 166 of the Motor vehicles Act by Ram Karan, husband of phulwati, Rampal, Ganjroop Singh, Kamal singh, major sons of Ram Karan, Jaipal minor son of Ram Karan and Savitri Devi daughter of said Ram Karan, against Zile singh, Dhoop Singh, M/s Ganpati Finance limited and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the case set up by the claimants before the Tribunal was that Phulwati deceased was the wife of appellant No.1. She was aged about 50 years. She was working as an agriculture labourer and she used to earn Rs.1,000 per month. She was returning on 20.10.1992 at about 10.15 p. m. after answering the call of nature along with the wife of Ganjroop Singh when a four-wheeler being driven at a high speed came there. It was being driven negligently and rashly. The four-wheeler came from Jha-jhu side. The accident took place near the bus stand of village Dagrali when the alleged four-wheeler struck against Phulwati, who died at the spot due to the injuries and the driver of the four-wheeler fled away along with the four-wheeler from the spot. According to claimants-appellants the accident was witnessed by Ram Kala, son of Hardwari and Randhir, son of San-wal Ram besides the wife of Ganjroop singh. With these allegations, claimants made a prayer that they should be awarded rs.2,00,000 by way of compensation.

3. It is also the case of the claimants-appellants at the trial that at the time of the alleged accident the four-wheeler was being driven by Zile Singh, the respondent no.1.

4. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. According to respondent No.1 he never plied the four-wheeler on the road in question on 20.10.1992 and that the whole story of the accident with the four-wheeler was fabricated. The witnesses colluded with the claimants. United india Insurance Co. Ltd. also denied its liability in the same way as Dhoop Singh, the owner of the vehicle.

5. The Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident had taken place owing to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 Zile Singh? (2) To what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and against whom? OPP (3) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement? (4) Relief.

6. The claimants-appellants led evidence. However, no evidence was led on behalf of respondent No.1. While determining the finding on the issue No.1, the tribunal held that it is not proved on the record that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 Zile Singh. Issue No.2 was also decided against the claimants. Similarly, issue No.3 was decided against the claimants. Resultantly, the claim petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 2.1.97 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

7. Not satisfied with the findings of the tribunal the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.

8. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimants-appellants filed an application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code for leading additional evidence. They want to place on record an application moved by Dhoop Singh making a prayer before the Magistrate for the release of the Tempo bearing registration No. HR 16-4089 on superdari; copy of the order dated 12.11.1992 vide which the Tempo was given on superdari; the copy of the order dated 25.1.1997 to show that F. I. R. No.185 dated 20.10.1992 was registered against Zile Singh, son of Partap Singh and copy of the charge-sheet dated 22.2.1993 framed against Zile Singh.

9. I have heard Mr. R. S. Sangwan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this ca