The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to prove negligence on the part of the respondent in motor accident claims. The judgment emphasizes the need to establish negligence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the claimants challenging award dated 04.02.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as, the 'Tribunal') whereby claim petition filed by the claimants under Sections 163A/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been dismissed.

2. The claimants filed a petition under Sections 163A and 166 of the Act seeking compensation on account of death of Rajiv Kumar, who lost his life due to injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 12.10.2006. As per the averments in the claim petition, Rajiv Kumar (deceased) was returning to his village Fatehgarh Churian in car No.DL-3C-AF-4888 driven by respondent No.1-Parshotam Babbar. When they reached near Soni Palace, a stray dog suddenly came in front of the car. Respondent No.1 could not control the same, as the car was being driven at a very high speed. As a result thereof, the car fell into a Nala (culvert). Rajiv Kumar succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Other occupants of the car also received injuries. It is alleged that the police authorities did not register any FIR. DDR No.13 dated 12.10.2006 was entered. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum was prayed for by the claimants, who are children, widow and mother of the deceased.

3. It is noticed that claim under Section 163A of the Act was specifically given up by the claimants and claim petition pursued under Section 166 of the Act as is recorded vide order dated 27.02.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal.

4. Claim petition was resisted by the respondents. Joint written statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 while pleading that it was deceased - Rajiv Kumar, who himself was driving the car in question. He lost control over the car in question as a stray dog came in front of the car, therefore, the accident had occurred. Thus, there was no question of any negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Separate written statement was filed by respondent No.3 resisting the claim petition. Dismissal of the claim petition was prayed for.

5. From pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether Parshotam Babbar, respondent No.1, caused the death of Rajiv Kumar son of Satish Kumar by driving of motor vehicle Tata Indica car, bearing registration No.DL3C-AF-4888, negligently? OPA

2. Whether the applicants are the legal representatives of Rajiv Kumar, deceased? OPA

3. Whether the application is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

4. Whether the application has been filed by applicants in collusion with respondents Nos.1 and 2? If so, to what effect? OPR(3)

5. Whether there was no valid route permit of the offending vehicle, if so, to what effect? OPR(3)

6. How much compensation, the applicants are entitled to recover and from which of the respondents? OPA Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence on record concluded that the claimants failed to prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. Sum of Rs. 50,000/- was however awarded on the principle of no fault liability. Aggrieved there from, claimants have filed the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that evidence on record proves that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 - Parshotam Babbar. It is submitted that mere fact that in DDR No.13 dated 12.10.2006 it is stated by Satish Kumar, father of the deceased that the accident in question took place due to a stray dog coming in front of the car and nobody was at fault, cannot be held to non-suit the claimants in the present proceedings. Satish Kumar while appearing as AW1 before the learned Tribunal testified tha