The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to provide sufficient and consistent evidence to establish liability in motor vehicle accident cases.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of legal representatives of one Partap, who unfortunately died in an accident alleged to have taken place on 07.06.2010 while travelling in a three wheeler bearing registration No.HR-46C-0998. As per the averment made in the claim petition, the deceased along with Vijay and others was travelling in the aforementioned three wheeler when a Tempo bearing temporary registration No.HR-61M-HQ-2937, driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2-insurance company hit against the three wheeler. Due to the impact, Partap son of Lal Chand and other occupants suffered serious and grievous multiple injuries. The passerby took the injured to PGIMS, Rohtak where Partap was declared as brought dead. In this regard, an FIR bearing No.231 dated 7.6.2010 under Sections 279, 304- A IPC on the basis of statement of eye witness namely Vijay son of Shiv Dhan.

2. Mr. Vivek Suri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that in the case of hit and run, first and prime consideration of the relatives of the injured persons is to take care of the injured ones instead of focusing on noting down the number of the vehicle. In fact, the aforementioned tempo insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited was involved in the accident as the FIR was lodged on the same date. He referred to statement of PW1, PW2 and PW4, whose testimonies according to him established the involvement of the aforementioned tempo, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.

3. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submits that the tempo insured with the insurance company was never involved in the accident. It was a planted vehicle as eye witnesses had not disclosed the name of the driver. In the testimony of Biro Devi, it has been found that Hawa Singh, brother of the deceased was married in village Pakasma i.e. the same village where the owner of the vehicle resided. Even PW4 has attributed the negligence to some other three wheeler and not the tempo, thus, rightly so, the Tribunal formed an opinion that the claimants have not been able to establish the death being caused by the tempo insured with the insurance company.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit in the submissions of Mr. Suri. In order to appreciate the controversy raised above, it would be apt to reproduce the statement of PW1, PW2 and PW4:-

“PW1 Vijay Singh son of Shiv Dhan, aged 60 years, agriculturist, resident of village Titoli District Rohtak on S.A.

5. Stated that on 7.6.2010, I along with my nephew Partap was returning from Sampla after finishing of our work. We were coming in a three wheeler No.HR46C-0998. The three wheeler was being driven at a normal speed. When we reached at village Kultana turn, one tempo bearing No.HR61M-HQ-2937 came from the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and he brought the vehicle on the wrong side and hit our three wheeler. Because of this impact, I became unconscious. We were then sent to the PGIMS, Rohtak. In the hospital, I regained consciousness. My statement was recorded by the police and on my statement, First Information Report, Exhibit P1 was recorded. The accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the tempo. The name of the driver could not be known even by now to me. xxxxxmn by Shri D.S. Chouhan, counsel for respondent No.3.

6. The registration number was told to me by one third person after I got recorded the First Information Report. It is correct that in the First Information Report, the number was not given. I have told o the police that the vehicle which hit was Tempo (confronted with Exhibit P1, wherein the factum of offending vehicle being Tempo is also not mentioned). I did not inform to the Police the registration number even after I was told the number on the same e