The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence in establishing liability in motor vehicle accident claims.

H. S. Bedi, J.

1. This claim petition has been filed under sec. 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a sum of rs.10,00,000 as compensation on account of injuries suffered by the claimant in the accident which happened on 19.12.1998, involving a scooter bearing registration no. HNM 260, in which the claimant suffered serious injuries. The claim petition was controverted by the respondent No.1 mool Chand, the driver of the scooter, respondent No.2 the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No.3 the insurance company. On the pleas of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(i) Whether Sarli Devi widow of Sunda ram sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of Mool Chand, respondent No.1, driver of scooter No. HNM 260, if so, its effect? OPP (ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether Mool Chand, respondent no.1, was not holding a valid driving licence, on the date of the accident? opr (iv) Relief.

2. Under issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the statement of Sarli Devi claimant, who appeared as PW 1 did not inspire confidence for the reason that she was unaware of the name of the driver of the scooter or the number of the scooter or of hawa Singh, the main witness, as these facts had not found mention in the F. I. R. The Tribunal accordingly held that it was not proved that Mool Chand had been driving the scooter in question at the time of the accident. The claim petition was accordingly dismissed. It is against the said award that the present appeal has been filed.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence with their assistance.

4. The Tribunal has given very good reasons for discarding the plea of claimant. The accident is said to have happened at 4 p. m. on 19.12.1998 and it is the admitted position that neither the number of the vehicle nor the name of its driver nor the name of PW 4 Hawa Singh, the main independent witness, find mention in the first information report at the instance of Sarli devi herself. It is also evident from the evidence that in the criminal case the untraced report given by the police was accepted by the Magistrate.

5. There is thus no merit in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.