Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J.(Oral):- The owner of vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1LB-9301 is in appeal against the award dated 23.07.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) was filed by Akhtar son of Fateh Mohd. The Tribunal held that Akhtar suffered injuries in an accident involving vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1LB-9301 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’). It was further held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Salim-driver of the offending vehicle. The compensation of Rs.4,65,000/- was awarded alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally held liable to pay the compensation.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, being aggrieved of the award of the Tribunal holding that Akhtar suffered injuries because of involvement of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.1 in appeal is the claimant before the Tribunal and respondent No.2 is the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The facts as pleaded in the claim petition are that Akhtar was working as a driver with M/s Graphicads Private Limited. On 03.04.2008 he had parked vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1LE-9253 for display on MG Road, Marble Market, Nathupur. The offending vehicle was also parked there and its driver was Salim-respondent No.2. At about 7:30 a.m. Akhtar and Farookh Khan (the alleged eye witness) were standing behind the vehicles and were talking to each other. Salim, without blowing horn, backed the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Akhtar tried to save himself but was hit by the offending vehicle, as a result of the impact, he fell down and received serious injuries. He was taken to Neelkanth Hospital by Farookh. On notice, in the written statement filed, Salim denied involvement of offending vehicle and pleaded that he was falsely being implicated. Written statement was also filed by Graphicads Private Limited. They admitted the ownership of the offending vehicle but denied the factum of involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself appeared as PW3 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW3/A. He reiterated the pleadings made in the claim petition. Constable Sher Singh deposed to prove FIR Ex.P1 which was registered at Police Station DLF, Phase-II, Gurgaon, on 06.04.2008. Mukesh Kumar Ahlmad in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,Gurgaon, was examined as PW4 as Salim was facing trial in that Court for causing accident and charges were framed against him. Doctor Himanshu Garg, PW2, deposed to prove the injuries. The Tribunal considering the evidence held that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. The argument is that the claimant failed to discharge the onus as casted upon him under Section 166 of the Act.

The contention raised deserves acceptance for the reasons mentioned below.

6. The onus to prove involvement and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is on the claimants. No doubt the onus in MACT proceedings is not as heavy as to be discharged in the criminal proceedings. In motor accident claims the issue is to be decided on principles of preponderance. In the case in hand, as per the claim petition, apart from claimant two more persons were there at the time of accident i.e. Farookh and Salim. Salim was not a stranger to the claimant. They were working as drivers with the appellant Company. They belonged to same village. There is a dispute whether they were related to each other or not but the claimant even in his cross-examination admitted that Salim belonged to same village.