The claimants must prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and the rash and negligent driving of the driver to succeed in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. - The Insurance Company is before this Court to impugn the award dated 01.11.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, wherein the following compensation was awarded to the claimants on account of the death of Arjun Dev (hereinafter referred to as, 'the deceased') in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2017:-

2. The amount of compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. was ordered to be paid by the respondents in the claim petition, jointly and severally. Claimant No.1-Sona (mother of the deceased) was held entitled to the whole amount of compensation, whereas claimants No.2 and 3 namely Rohtash and Sonu (father and elder brother) were held not entitled to the amount of compensation.

3. As per the pleaded case of the claimants in their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the fateful day i.e. 25.11.2017 at about 12:00 p.m. when the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing registration number HR-12M-2154 on the Jhajjar-Bahadurgarh road near village Kablana, he met with an accident with an unknown vehicle and suffered injuries. Some passersby shifted him to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. On being informed, the elder brother of the deceased, Sonu (hereinafter referred to as, 'the complainant'), reached the hospital. On account of the serious condition of the deceased, he was referred to PGIMS Rohtak, however, he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. An FIR No.1048 dated 26.11.2017 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was registered at Police Station Jhajjar on the statement of the complainant against driver of an unknown vehicle. It was claimed that subsequent to the registration of the FIR, driver of the offending vehicle, Basti Ram respondent No.4, along with some respectables came to the village of the deceased where he admitted causing the accident in question with the offending vehicle i.e. TATA Canter bearing registration number HR-47C-3318 and also tried to effect a compromise with the family of the deceased. The complainant, thereafter, got his supplementary statement recorded before the police on 12.12.2017 wherein he alleged that the accident in question had been caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4 while he was driving the offending vehicle. It was also further claimed that after the accident in question, on 04.12.2017, one person by the name of Bijender, who was working in his fields, adjoining to the place of accident, got his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the police, wherein he stated that respondent No.4 was responsible for the accident as he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

4. The learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition after holding that the death of the deceased had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.4 who was driving the offending vehicle.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company has vehemently argued that on the face of it, it is a case wherein the offending vehicle has been falsely planted by the claimants in collusion with the police, just to extract compensation. Learned counsel has still further argued that the sequence of events clearly points to the accident in question being a 'hit and run' case. While inviting the attention of this Court to the FIR, which was registered on the following day of the accident by the complainant, it has been urged