The claim petition should be decided solely based on the evidence led before the Tribunal, and the criminal case is relevant only for corroborating the factum of the accident.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 30.11.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (in short, 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

2. For the purpose of the present appeal, the parties would be referred to as they were described in the original claim petition filed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts, as involved in the present appeal, are that on 30.10.1998 at about 11:00 p.m. Ramautar was standing near Ghasi Ram Memorial, Village Balawas Tehsil Bawal, when a jeep being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came there and hit against Ramautar. Due to darkness, registration number of the speeding jeep could not be noticed. However, lateron, the number of the offending jeep was found to be RRD-4459. On account of the injuries suffered by Ramautar, he died after being taken to hospital. On account of this accident, an FIR No.274 dated 31.10.1998 was also registered under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Bawal on the statement of eye-witness Dilbagh Singh, who is the brother of the deceased. Asserting these facts, the widow, the minor daughter and parents of deceased-Ramautar filed a claim petition. However, the said claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.

4. As reply to the claim petition, respondent No.1-driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle denied the accident altogether. Therefore, he denied his liability to make any payment of the compensation. However, it was asserted that the offending vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company also filed a separate written statement taking the routine preliminary objections, as well as, denying the involvement of the offending vehicle in question altogether. Besides this, it was also asserted that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any driving license at the time of accident.

5. Arguing the case, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has gone totally wrong in dismissing the claim petition. The eye-witness has been duly examined before the Tribunal in the claim petition to substantiate the assertions made in the claim petition. The said witness has elaborately deposed qua the factum of the accident and the manner in which the same had happened. The respondents had put him to cross-examination; as well, however, nothing has come out to impeach the assertion made by the claimants. The Tribunal has gone totally wrong in law in relying upon the FIR and the proceedings therein to dismiss the claim petition in the present case. Learned counsel has relied upon judgment rendered by this Court on 06.01.2023 in FAO No.5296 of 2022 titled as 'United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mamta and others' to buttress his argument that any aspect of the criminal case is not relevant for the purpose of decision of the claim petition. The claim petition is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal in claim petition. Still further the learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has not even assessed the other aspects, regarding quantum of compensation; involved in the matter. Therefore, after setting aside the findings recorded by Tribunal, the matter deserves to be remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication on the aspect of quantum of compensation.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants. The statement made by the alleged eye-witness in the FIR mentioned a different vehicle then the one which has been mentioned in the claim petition. This makes it clear that the claim petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with the driver and owner of the alleged offending vehicle. No accident had tak