The onus to prove negligence in motor accident cases lies with the claimants, and reliable witness testimonies are crucial in establishing the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the vehicle.

1. The unsuccessful claimants aggrieved by the award dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mewat have filed this appeal.

2. Sariyam along with two children filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation for the death of Abdul Sattar aged 60. He was a mason earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Regarding the accident, an FIR no.155 was registered on 09.03.2014 under Sections 279, 304-A IPC at Police Station Nuh, on the statement made by Mohd. Rijwan son of Fajruddin. It was claimed that the deceased was treated also at a hospital in Delhi and a sum of Rs.87,651/- was spent.

3. Respondents no.1 & 2 in their joint written statement pleaded that the claim was false and no accident had taken place and the story given by the claimants was frivolous. The insurance company also took the same plea. It was also denied that the deceased was having an income of Rs.10,000/- per month or that he was a mason.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether accident in question resulting death of Abdul Sattar son of Noor Mohd. Took place on 08.03.2014 in the area near Fakru Petrol Pump, Nuh, P.S. Nuh, because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HR-74-1887 by its driver/respondent no.1? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of alleged accident. If so to what effect? OPR-3

4. Whether respondent no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged. If so to what effect? OPR-3

5. Relief.

5. The Tribunal recorded the following finding:-

“12. After hearing rival contentions and appreciating the evidence on record, I find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Needless to say, onus to prove the act of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle in MACT cases, is always on the claimant. The same law has been laid down in SK Arora Vs. Dr. Manoj Bisla 2012 SC, page 118 wherein it has been laid down that the onus to prove the negligence in MACT petitions, is always upon the claimants and they are bound to discharge it before the Tribunal by leading cogent and clinching evidence, though the element of proving negligence under the Motor Vehicles Act is not the same as the standard of proof necessary in a criminal case. When the FIR refers to the involvement of the insured vehicle and there is a witness, who refers to the fact that he arrived at the spot immediately after the accident, it is not too difficult for anyone to make an inference as to what was the vehicle which was involved that resulted in a fatal accident. Even in the absence of eye-witness to the occurrence, the Tribunal which conducts the summary proceeding should weight the other material produced to determine the issue as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the case in hand the alleged incident of accident was witnessed by Rijwan son of Fajruddin on whose instance the FIR no.155 Ex.P12 was lodged on the next day of the occurrence. However, by the time of reporting the matter to the police the said so called eye-witness was not knowing about the registration number of the offending vehicle or name of its driver. While stepping in the witness box he has failed to prove that the occurrence was actually witnessed by him. Undoubtedly by way of tendering affidavit Ex.PW1/A in his chief he has reiterated the contents of the petition on oath but his credibility has been impeached in his cross wherein he has stated that before reaching his at the spot, the passerby had already shifted to the injured to Medical College, Nalhar. Meaning thereby he came to know about the incident after rushing the injured to hospital and at the time of accident he was not present. Even at one place