The onus of proof on the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the requirement for reliable evidence to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 5.8.2005.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that the appellant suffered injuries including suffered fracture of bone of left leg and injury on left eye, in the alleged motor vehicular accident that occurred on 29.10.2003,.

3. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act and it was alleged that the appellant was hit by a rashly and negligent driven motor cycle bearing registration No. PB-70-4737. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant was not able to establish the involvement of the offending motor cycle.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was an accident in which the appellant had suffered injuries and was taken to the hospital, therefore, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition. He further contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the deposition of Mangat Ram-PW4, who was an eye witness to the accident.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that the claimant miserably failed to prove the involvement of the offending motor cycle. He further argued that the alleged eye witness was not worth reliance.

6. From perusal of the facts, it is apparent that the appellant along with his wife were going on foot when they were allegedly hit by a motor cycle. The appellant suffered injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambala, where MLR was prepared. The accident occurred on 29.10.2003 whereas FIR was registered on 30.10.2003 on the statement of the appellant.

7. The legal position is that under Section 166 of the Act, the onus is on the claimant to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

8. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Surender Kumar Arora and another Versus Dr. Manoj Bisla and others, 2012 (4) SCC 552, wherein it has been held that under Section 166 of the Act, initial onus to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, is on the claimant.

9. In the present case, the entire issue of discharge of onus revolves around the statement made by one Mangat Ram, who is the alleged eye witness. Apart from this statement, there is no other evidence on record to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle. The statement made by Mangat Ram including his cross-examination is reproduced as under:

''PW-4 Mangat Ram son of Arjun Ram son of Mansa Ram, aged 40 years, Carpenter, resident of Village Jarot, Distt. Patiala. On S.A.

On 29.10.2003 at about 5:00 P.M. I was present at my shop of furniture near the Sales Tax Barrier, of Sultanpur on Chandigarh Road. Krishan Lal is the 'sandhu' (co-brother) of my elder brother Raghbir Chand. Krishan Lal and his wife Bala Devi were going on foot to their house and they had crossed the pucca road and reached on the kacha portion of the road. In the meantime, motor cycle bearing No.PB-70-4737 came from the side of Baldev Nagar in a rash and negligent manner in a very high speed and the driver of the said motor cycle could not control the same and hit the same against Krishan Lal due to which Krishan Lal sustained injuries. I had removed him to Civil Hospital, Ambala City. My statement was recorded by the police in the evening in Civil Hospital, Ambala City. After the accident motor cyclist had fled away along with his motor cycle. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of motor cyclist. Krishan Lal is a mason. He used to get Rs.150/- as daily wages.

Xxxx n by Shri Varinder Singh proxy counsel for Shri B.S. Jaspal, counsel for No.1......Nil......opportunity given.

My shop is situated at a distance of 100 feet from the place of accident. I was sitting ou