Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.: - Aggrieved against award dated October 07, 2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat, whereby, claim petition preferred by appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘Act’) seeking grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest on account of injuries sustained by appellant in a motor vehicular accident on February 21, 2013 in the area of village Tauru, District Mewat involving vehicle bearing registration No. HR-27-C-4909, was dismissed.

2. Briefly, stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that on February 21, 2013, appellant was returning to his house from his school at Patel Nagar, Tauru on foot. At about 3.30 PM, when he reached on Bawla road, Tauru, a vehicle bearing registration No. HR-27-C-4909 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came from the front side being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the appellant, as a result of impact, appellant fell on the road and suffered multiple injuries including fractures in his right leg. After the accident respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle accelerated the truck and fled away from the spot. The accident was witnessed by Hamid who noted down the registration number of the offending vehicle. It has further been averred that accident took place due to the sole rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No.1. It has further been unfolded by the appellant that he was rushed to Vinayak Hospital, Bhiwani by Jameel Khan where he was treated and he incurred an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on his treatment, medicines, transportation and special diet. Due to sustaining injuries in the accident, appellant has become permanent disabled.

3. The claim petition was resisted by respondents. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections inter-alia on the ground that claim petition is not maintainable; that the claimants have no locus standi to file the petition; that they have concealed the actual and factual facts and that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. On merits, the accident has been denied. It has been specifically alleged that no accident took place with the vehicle in question by respondent No.1. It has further been averred that FIR has been falsely got registered against respondent No.1 by the claimants in connivance with police and the witnesses. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has also denied the accident and has alleged that in fact the appellant might have sustained injuries while crossing the road and was dashed by unknown vehicle. It has further been pleaded by respondent No.3 that respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. On merits, age, income and occupation of the appellant and expenses incurred by him on his treatment are also denied.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned Tribunal on April 16, 2014:

1. Whether the accident in question resulting into multiple injuries to petitioner took place on 21.2.2013 in the jurisdiction of Police Station Tauru, because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-27-C-4909 by its driver/respondent No.1? OPP.

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. If so, to what effect? OPR-3

4. Relief.

5. To substantiate his claim, appellant examined Zamil Khan as PW1 and the alleged eye witness Hamid as PW2 and thereby, close the evidence after placing on record various documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P62.

6. On the other hand, respondents did not led any evidence despite the fact that they afforded ample opportunities. Ultimately, learned Tribunal closed the evidence by order.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and app