Liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is determined based on establishing rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

1. The Tribunal chose to dismiss the claim petition laid by the claimant Rajesh who sought compensation for the death of his mule and damage to the mule cart. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

2. The case of the claimant Rajesh is that on 26.10.2009 at about 6. 15 A. M. when he was riding his mule cart along with his famlily members towards Bamla, a white car bearing registration No. HR-20-1754 driven by Jaswant at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the mule cart from backside and as a result of which the mule of the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the cart was badly damaged. The mule later on died succumbed to the injures later on. He claimed compensation for the loss of his mule and the damage caused to the mule cart.

3. The Tribunal having adverted to the version of the petitioner-claimant in the First Information Report and the final report submitted by the investigating officer came to the conclusion that Jaswant as claimed by the claimant did not drive the vehicle but it was only Rajesh who drove the vehicle as per the final report. Having thus observed, the Tribunal rejected the version of the claimant that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by Jaswant.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that Jaswant and Rajesh have been impleaded as parties to the claim petition. Though, Rajesh was charged for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimant had deposed that it was only Jaswant who drove the offending car and caused the accident. It is his further submission that even assuming that Rajesh had driven the vehicle, the final report marked through RW1 would disclose that Jaswant was sitting by the side of Rajesh. Therefore, it is his submission that the Tribunal should have held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of Rajesh who has been projected as the actual driver of the vehicle as per the final report.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company would submit that the final report submitted by the investigating officer cuts the very root of the version of the claimant that it was only Jaswant who drove the vehicle. In as much as the rash and negligent driving of Jaswant shown as driver in the First Information Report was not established, the claim petition preferred by the claimants cannot be accepted. Further as the claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is bound to establish the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, it is her submission that the Tribunal has rightly held that the rash and negligent driving of Jaswnat was not established by the claimant.

6. The claimant has stuck to the stand in his First Information Report that it was only Jaswant who drove the offending vehicle and caused the accident but the investigating officer has arrived at a decision that it was only Rajesh who actually drove the offending vehicle at the time of accident and caused the injury to the mule and mule cart. Rajesh filed a written statement to the claim petition filed by the claimant. He has admitted therein that it was he who drove the offending vehicle at the time when the accident took place.

7. The final report submitted along with the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would disclose that Jaswant and Rajesh infact travelled in the same vehicle at the time when the accident took place.

8. It may be a case where infact Jaswant was the driver who drove the offending vehicle and in order to escape from the criminal prosecution he had projected Rajesh as the driver or it may be a case where Rajesh drove the offending vehicle and Jaswant who was sitting by the side of Rajesh was wrongly noted by the mule cart driver as the driver of the of